Deciding a case that arose in the Southport section of Fairfield, the Connecticut Supreme Court appears to have significantly widened the discretion of historic district commissions to reject property alterations.

The crux of the case was whether the Fairfield commission had the authority to deny a home renovation on the grounds that it would "damage the integrity" of Southport harbor, as opposed to any particular structure.

The court said it did, disagreeing with a trial court ruling in favor of the homeowner that said the commission was authorized to regulate only a structure's "exterior architectural features" and that the commission acted subjectively in basing its denial on the broader concept of the harbor's overall integrity.

"We made law here," Fairfield town attorney told the Connecticut Post in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling.

"The jurisdiction of the historic district and commission has been expanded – as has every other [similar] one in Connecticut."

Saxl said the decision also gives municipal lawyers more latitude in court to defend a land use commission's decision under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court did not rule entirely in the town's favor, however. It said the Fairfield commission erred by focusing during its hearings on the inappropriate "massing" that would have resulted from the renovation rather than the damage to the harbor's integrity.

In fact, the court said the lower court was correct in ruling the homeowner was entitled to proceed with the renovation, given the hearing record. It involved connecting a 1939 outbuilding with the main house built in 1899.

On the general principle though that integrity is a valid concern, the Supreme Court agreed with the town.

"We read the trial court's decision to suggest that the historic value or significance that the commission may properly seek to preserve or protect is limited to the building or structure being altered or to architectural features of nearby buildings or structures," it said.

"Although that is a test, we conclude that it is not the only test … Our reading of the statute leads us to conclude the commission additionally may consider the relationship of a building or structure to a place of historic significance."

The court deemed the case significant enough that it took it directly on appeal. The unanimous decision was written by Justice Peter Zarella.