RETURN DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2026
`
`DOCKET NO. : SUPERIOR COURT
`SABRINA SILVERSTEIN and : J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`ANDREW MACCACHRAN
`Vv. ‘ AT NEW HAVEN
`CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD
`OF APPEALS and BAVARO BEACH LLC : DECEMBER 12, 2025
`SUMMONS AND CITATION
`TO ANY PROPER OFFICER:
`BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby
`commanded to summon the CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, of
`355 Main Street, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, and BAVARO BEACH LLC, of 53 Oldfield
`Road, Fairfield, Connecticut 06824, to appear before the Superior Court within and for the
`Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, at 235 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut
`06510, on the second Tuesday in February 2026, February 10, 2026 (“Return Date”), said
`appearance to be made by said CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
`and BAVARO BEACH LLC, or their attorneys, by filing written appearances with the Clerk of
`said Court on or before the second day following said Return Date, then and there to answer the
`Appeal and Complaint of SABRINA SILVERSTEIN and ANDREW MACCACHRAN, of
`248 Connecticut Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, by leaving two (2) true and attested
`copies of the Appeal and Complaint, and this Summons and Citation, with the West Haven City
`Clerk, acting as agent for service for the CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD OF
`APPEALS as provided in Connecticut General Statutes § 52-57 (b) (5), at the West Haven City
`Hall located at 355 Main Street, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, on or before December 17,
`(87560931)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2025, and serving one (1) true and attested copy of the Appeal and Complaint, and this Summons
`and Citation upon BAVARO BEACH LLC, of 53 Oldfield Road, Fairfield, Connecticut 06824,
`at least twelve (12) days before the Return Date, in the manner provided by law for the service of
`civil process, and due return make. Said West Haven City Clerk is to retain one (1) copy of the
`Appeal and Complaint, and this Summons and Citation and forward one (1) copy of the Appeal
`and Complaint, and this Summons and Citation to the CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING
`BOARD OF APPEALS.
`I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the financial responsibility of the
`Plaintiffs and deem it sufficient to pay the costs of this action.
`HEREOF, FAIL NOT, but of this Writ with your doings thereon, make due service and
`return.
`
` (57560931) 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RETURN DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2026
`DOCKET NO. ; SUPERIOR COURT
`SABRINA SILVERSTEIN and ; J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
`ANDREW MACCACHRAN
`v. ‘ AT NEW HAVEN
`CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD
`OF APPEALS and BAVARO BEACH LLC : DECEMBER 12, 2025
`APPEAL — COMPLAINT
`TO THE SUPERIOR COURT for the Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven,
`on February 10, 2026, come Plaintiffs, SABRINA SILVERSTEIN and ANDREW
`MACCACHRAN (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), aggrieved by and appealing from
`the decision of Defendant, CITY OF WEST HAVEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
`(hereinafter referred to as the “ZBA”) approving applications (# 051-25 V and # 052-25 V) of
`Defendant BAVARO BEACH LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) for variances to
`split a lot at 792 Ocean Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, and construct a single-family
`dwelling on the new lot contrary to various lot size, setback, coverage, frontage, and open space
`regulatory requirements / allowances. The Plaintiffs respectfully state as follows:
`1. The Plaintiffs are the owners and residents of property located at 248 Connecticut
`Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut 06516.
`2. Upon information and belief, the Applicant is the owner of property located at
`792 Ocean Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut 06516 (the subject “Property”). The rear of the
`Property abuts Connecticut Avenue and is directly across the street from the Plaintiffs’ property
`at 248 Connecticut Avenue.
`(57560931)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. The ZBA is a duly established and existing municipal agency created pursuant to
`Chapter 124 of the Connecticut General Statutes with an address located at 355 Main Street,
`West Haven, Connecticut 06516. The ZBA is empowered and designated to hear and decide in
`an administrative capacity within the City of West Haven, inter alia, applications for variances
`pursuant to Section 90 of the West Haven Zoning Regulations (the “Regulations”). This Court
`has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the ZBA’s decisions pursuant to Connecticut General
`Statutes § 8-8.
`4, The Property encompasses approximately .248 acres in a single-family residential
`(R-2) district near Long Island Sound in the City of West Haven. The Property is improved with
`an existing one-story single-family dwelling built in or around 1955 fronting on Ocean Avenue
`with a detached garage. The Property is already undersized with a 10,800 square-foot lot in the
`R-2 single-family residential district where 16,000 square feet is required.
`5. Applications # 051-25 V and # 052-25 V (collectively, the “Applications”) were
`filed with the ZBA on behalf of the Applicant on or about November 2, 2025, seeking to split the
`lot with construction of a second two-and-a-half story single-family dwelling on the proposed
`new lot. The existing lot would be halved with the existing lot and the new lot each totaling
`approximately 5,400 square feet. The Applications specifically sought variances from Section
`11 of the Regulations (Table 11.1) providing various area and bulk requirements for the R-2
`single-family residential district.
`6. Application # 051-25 V sought variances for the existing lot to permit: (1) 5,400
`square feet where 16,000 square feet is required, (2) a west side yard set back of 10 feet where
`15 feet is required, (3) an east side yard setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is required, (4) a rear
`yard setback of 23.3 feet where 30 feet is required, (5) maximum building coverage of 31.2%
`(57560931) 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`where 20% is allowed, (6) impervious coverage of 22% where 15% is allowed, (7) lot coverage
`of 53.2% where 35% is allowed, and (8) open space of 46.8% where 65% is required.
`Te Application # 052-25 V sought variances for the new lot to permit: (1) 5,400
`square feet where 16,000 square feet is required, (2) a front yard setback of 20 feet where 30 feet
`is required, (3) a west side yard set back of 10 feet where 15 feet is required, (4) an east side yard
`setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is required, (5) maximum building coverage of 25.1% where
`20% is allowed, and (6) street frontage of 50 feet where 80 feet is required.
`8. Notably, the Applications proposed creating new building coverage, impervious
`coverage, lot coverage, and open space non-conformities where none previously existed and
`exacerbating lot size non-conformities with now two substantially undersized lots.
`9. Section 90 of the Regulations, in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes $
`8-6, requires for the approval of variances from the strict enforcement of the Regulations an
`unusual hardship amounting to special circumstances peculiar to the property for which strict
`application of the Regulations would deprive the owner of any reasonable use thereof that
`likewise remains in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Regulations.
`10. TheZBA considered the Applications at a public hearing held on November 19,
`2025. Several neighbors, including the Plaintiffs, spoke in opposition to the Applications.
`11. Thereafter, the ZBA granted the Applications on that same night by a vote of four
`in favor to one against, finding hardship based upon a change in the Regulations.
`12. Notice of the ZBA’s approval of the Applications was published in the New
`Haven Register on December 2, 2025.
`13. The Applications did not, however, meet the strict standards for the requested
`variances because the Applicant failed to establish an unusual hardship peculiar to the subject
`(57560931) 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Property for which the strict application of the Regulations would deprive the Applicant of any
`reasonable use thereof. Notably, the Property is already improved with a single-family dwelling
`on an undersized lot in a single-family residential district. The mere desire by the Applicant to
`split the lot and build a second single-family dwelling on the new lot does not amount to an
`unusual hardship while the Applicant already has a reasonable use of the Property. The
`Applicant has also failed to identify any circumstances peculiar to the Property as opposed to
`other properties in the neighborhood, and R-2 single-family residential district overall, to warrant
`approval of the requested variances.
`14. The Applicant also failed to establish that the variances for the Property were in
`harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Regulations. To the contrary, the
`Applications propose splitting an already undersized lot creating density and coverage far
`beyond that contemplated by the Regulations for the R-2 single-family residential district.
`15. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision as that term is defined in
`Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8 because they are the owners of property within 100 feet of
`the Property that is the subject of the Applications and the ZBA’s decision.
`16. The Plaintiffs are also classically aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision because they
`have a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as distinguished
`from a general interest such as that of the community as a whole, which interest is harmed by the
`ZBA’s decision.
`17. In granting the Applications, the ZBA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of
`the discretion vested in it because, among other things:
`a. The ZBA approved the Applications which did not meet the standards for
`the requested variances contrary to Section 90 of the Regulations and
`Connecticut General Statutes § 8-6;
`{$7560931} 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(57560931)
`The ZBA failed to apply the standards for variances set forth in Section 90
`of the Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes $ 8-6,
`or otherwise make appropriate findings;
`There was no showing of an unusual hardship peculiar to the Property for
`which strict application of the Regulations would deprive the Applicant of
`any reasonable use thereof;
`There was no showing that the variances were in harmony with the general
`purpose and intent of the Regulations and the R-2 single-family residential
`district;
`The ZBA’s decision was not supported by the facts or evidence in the
`record and instead relied upon other factors and considerations outside the
`scope of the record and applicable law, namely the Applicants” personal
`preferences and voluntary acts creating any putative hardship based
`improperly upon the Applicant’s personal preferences and financial
`considerations;
`The ZBA improperly authorized the expansion of non-conformities;
`The ZBA failed to articulate collective reasons or make findings of fact for
`its decision supported by the record; and
`The ZBA erred in other respects that will be further specified when the
`record of its proceeding is filed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs appeal from the decision of the ZBA granting Applications
`# 051-25 V and # 052-25 V, and seeks the following relief:
`1. An Order finding that the ZBA acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the
`discretion vested in it in granting the Applications;
`2. An Order sustaining this land use appeal and directing the ZBA to deny the
`Applications;
`3. The costs incurred in this proceeding as may be provided by law; and
`4. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 12" day of December, 2025.
`THE PLAINTIFFS,
`SABRINA SILVERSTEIN and
`ANDREW MACCACHRAN
`7 =a
`
`
`Timothy A-Smit
`Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
`1055 Washington Boulevard
`Fourth Floor
`Stamford, CT 06901
`Tel: 203-425-4200
`Fax: 203-325-8608
`tsmith@carmodylaw.com
`Juris No. 435512
`Their Attorneys
`
`(57560931) 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please enter the appearance of:
`CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
`1055 Washington Boulevard
`Fourth Floor
`Stamford, CT 06901
`Tel: 203-425-4200
`Fax: 203-325-8608
`tsmith@carmodylaw.com
`Juris Nor435512 A
`
`
`
`y
`> A
`
`az y f : SA ¿
`Timothy A. Smith / )
`CouinisstoneroPtie Superior Court
`For the Plaintiffs Sabrina Silverstein and Andrew MacCachran
`{S7560931} 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`