Highland St. Assocs. v. Comm'r of Transp.

213 Conn.App. 426

278 A.3d 30

HIGHLAND STREET ASSOCIATES et al.

v.COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION et al.

AC 44330

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 11, 2022

Officially released June 21, 2022

Anthony C. Famiglietti, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Clare Kindall, solicitor general, for the appellants (defendants).

Joel Z. Green, Bridgeport, with whom was Linda Pesce Laske, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Bright, C. J., and Cradle and DiPentima, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

In this declaratory judgment action, the defendants, the Commissioner of Transportation (commissioner) and the Department of Transportation (department), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Highland Street Associates (Highland Street) and Barrett Outdoor Communications, Inc. (Barret Outdoor). On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in concluding that the replacement of a billboard's existing trestle support structure with a monopole¹ constituted maintenance and repair under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (act), 23 U.S.C. § 131 et seq., and General Statutes § 13a-123. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which are undisputed, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Highland Street owns a parcel of real property located at 215 Webster Street in Bridgeport. Barrett Outdoor owns and operates a billboard that is located on the Webster Street property. The billboard consists of two sign faces that sit atop a trestle support structure that is affixed to the ground. Advertising messages are displayed on the sign faces and are changed frequently. The billboard is located in a residential zone and is also within 660 feet of Interstate 95, a federal highway. A permit for the billboard was issued by the department on May 9, 1966.² Although a new billboard would not be a permitted use at this location, because the billboard at issue was erected prior to 1968, it is undisputed that it is a nonconforming grandfathered sign under the act and § 13a-123.

Recently, Barrett Outdoor decided that it wanted to replace the billboard's existing trestle support structure with a new monopole. To that end, in November, 2017, Barrett Outdoor submitted an "Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit" to the department.³ The application identified the billboard as a "[p]re-existing structure" and stated that "[t]he pole of the structure needs to be replaced." Dennis Buckley, a Bridgeport zoning official, signed off on the plaintiffs’ application, attesting that "the structure described [in the application] is in accordance with all local zoning regulations and ordinances concerning off-premise advertising."

On January 5, 2018, the department denied the plaintiffs’ request for a new permit, stating: "The existing sign ... does have nonconforming status and will be allowed to be maintained and continued pursuant to [§] 13a-123-12 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and 23 C.F.R. § 750.707. However, to maintain nonconforming status, a billboard structure must remain ‘substantially the same.’ Anything beyond customary maintenance and repair, such as the replacement of the sign with a new structure , is not permissible under [f]ederal and [s]tate law." (Emphasis added.)

Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the department asking it to reconsider the denial of their application because "the present use of the premises at 215 Webster Street ... for an outdoor advertising structure while nonconforming to the Zoning Regulations of the City of Bridgeport, is a legally and permitted use of the premises at 215 Webster Street ... [and] there is no contemplated change in the use of the property by virtue of the application including the replacement of the structure supporting the existing outdoor advertising sign which, once again, is specifically permitted under Connecticut law." The department denied that request, stating that the plaintiffs’ application did not "request customary maintenance and repair" of the billboard because "[the plaintiffs are] seeking to remove the existing sign structure and replace it with an entirely new structure." In denying the plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration, the department specifically relied on this court's decision in Billboards Divinity, LLC v. Commissioner of Transportation , 133 Conn. App. 405, 35 A.3d 395, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 916, 40 A.3d 783 (2012), wherein, according to the department's summary of the case, this court defined the phrase " ‘maintenance and repair’ to mean ‘actions taken to perpetuate or to restore a presently existing sign.’ " (Emphasis in original.)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176,⁴ the plaintiffs then petitioned the department for a declaratory ruling that they could replace the billboard's existing trestle support structure with a new monopole. After the department failed to act on the plaintiffs’ petition, the plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175,⁵ seeking a declaratory ruling that they could replace the billboard's existing support structure.

A one day court trial was held on March 10, 2020.⁶ At the trial, Bruce Barrett, the president of Barrett Outdoor, testified on direct examination that Barrett Outdoor submitted an application for a new permit because "[w]e were being very protective, we wanted to make sure if we disassembled this sign and replaced it that midstream the [department] wouldn't tell us that we needed a permit." Barrett also testified on direct examination that, in order to replace the billboard's existing trestle support structure with a new monopole, the existing sign would need to come down for "a week or two weeks whatever time." On cross-examination, Barrett stated that, once the existing support structure had been replaced with the monopole, "[t]he [billboard's] support structure will look different."

Matthew Geanacopoulos, a department employee, testified that an application for a permit was required only when a sign owner was "erecting a new structure," and that, if a sign owner simply wanted to perform maintenance or repair on a billboard, the owner did not need to submit anything to the department. Geanacopoulos also testified that the department had denied the plaintiffs’ application because the plaintiffs had "applied for a new permit, and their application said they were going to replace their existing sign," a request that the department "interpret[ed] ... as a new structure, new sign" which was not allowed under state and federal law.

In a decision dated September 8, 2020, the court, Hon. Dale W. Radcliffe , judge trial referee, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The court held that (1) the construction of a monopole in place of the billboard's existing trestle support system constituted maintenance and repair because "the outdoor advertising sign is slated to remain in the same location, will contain the same dimensions, and will be adjacent to the same interstate highway," and (2) pursuant to General Statutes § 8-2, the billboard's preexisting nonconforming use was a vested right with which the department could not interfere. The court also held that this court's decision in Billboards Divinity, LLC v. Commissioner of Transportation , supra, 133 Conn. App. at 418–19, 35 A.3d 395, was distinguishable from the plaintiff's case because the property owners in Billboards Divinity, LLC , "desired to erect two new billboards, after two nonconforming billboards were removed from the site," whereas in the present case, "the issue involves an existing outdoor advertising sign, which has not been discontinued, or abandoned." The defendants then appealed.

We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and principles of law that guide our analysis. Resolving the defendants’ appeal requires us to interpret and apply the provisions of the act and § 13a-123. "With respect to the construction and application of federal statutes, principles of comity and consistency require us to follow the plain meaning rule for the interpretation of federal statutes because that is the rule of construction utilized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.... If the meaning of the text is not plain, however, we must look to the statute as a whole and construct an interpretation that comports with its primary purpose and does not lead to anomalous or unreasonable results." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 285 Conn. 381, 400–401, 941 A.2d 868 (2008) ; see also O'Toole v. Eyelets for Industry, Inc. , 148 Conn. App. 367, 373, 86 A.3d 475 (2014) (plain meaning rule, as set forth in General Statutes § 1-2z, does not apply when interpreting federal statutes).

Similarly, as to the construction and application of state statutes, "[o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply.... In seeking to determine that meaning ... § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.... Furthermore, [t]he legislature is always presumed to have created a harmonious and consistent body of law ... [so that] [i]n determining the meaning of a statute ... we look not only at the provision at issue, but also to the broader statutory scheme to ensure the...