Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin building were "buildings" with:in the- scope and meaning of the town's bylaw. If they were, they were subject to its building setback require- ments as Ragonese claimed. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Ragonese. The court found that the board's and the building inspector's rulings were incorrect, arbitrary and capricious, and would "lead to an unrea- sonable result contrary to the clear intent of the [setback] bylaw." It or- dered Butcher Boy to remove the trailers from the setback area within 30 days. Building setbacks were enacted to prevent oVeicrowding, conserve the value of land and buildings, and provide adequate light and air, and the bylaw required an additional 15-foot setback in business zones that abutted residential zones. The clear intent of this requirement was to have a "wide separation between residences and the noise, traffic and other impacts of commercial enterprises." The court noted that, "[c]onsistent with the intention to have wide separations, 'buildings' were given a broad definition in the Bylaw." They were defined as "structure[s] having a roof supported by columns or walls for the shelter, support or enclosure of persons, animals, or property." A structure was defined as "a combination of materials to form a construction that [was] safe and stable," and "sheds," "shelters" and "tents" are given as explicit examples. Butcher Boy contended that its cold storage trailers were not "buildings" because they were not designed to be permanent struc- tures. It claimed that the trailers "could be moved at any time," and they had up-to-date registrations so they could be so moved. But the court found that it was "indicative, however, that they have not been moved in over seven years except for periodic maintenance and for a trip around the block, shortly before trial, to show the court their mo- bility if a need arose." The court found that Butcher Boy's argument ignored the clear lan- guage of the Bylaw. The cold storage trailers "perfectly fit" both aspects of the definition of buildings-they had a roof supported by walls and were used for the shelter, support and enclosure of property. Ultimately, the store's use of the trailers in the exact same location for more than seven years led the court to decide that they were "neither used, nor in- tended for use, as mobile transport." Because the court found the trailers to be buildings within the mean- ing of the town's bylaws, the board's decision upholding the building inspector's refusal to take zoning enforcement action against the Butcher Boy was annulled. The court found that, thus, the trailers had to com- ply with the town's setback requirements. See also: State v. Perry, 149 Conn. 232, 178 A.2d 279 (1962). 10 72 (j \ ----) ( ) ---.~/