Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court next concluded that ~ 18-285(g) of the Code was uncon- <br />stitutionaL The court found that the power the city was authorized <br />with to control the uses of property through zoning did not extend to <br />control the manner in which the property was owned. The city could <br />only regulate the use of the property, not the ownership, the court <br />said. The court also noted that owner-occupation of a dwelling was <br />the same use of the property ill a zoning sense as tenant-occupation. <br />Hill was not seeking to change the use of one of the structures on his <br />lot, merely the nature of the occupancy. <br />Finally, the court concluded that ~ 18-25(g) of the Code was be- <br />yond the scope of the zoning enabling statute, which gra,nted the city <br />the power to "regulate and restrict the... use of buildings, structures <br />and land." It was beyond the scope of the enabling statute because ~ <br />18-25(g) impermissibly regulated the ownership rather than the use <br />of Hill's property. <br /> <br />See also: Graham Court Associates v. Town Council of Town of <br />Chapel Hill, 53 N.C. App. 543, 281 S.E.2d 418 (1981); Beers v. <br />Board of Adjustment of Wayne Tp., 75 N.J. Super. 305, 183 A.2d <br />130 (App. Div. 1962. <br /> <br />Case Note: The city had pointed to cases in support of its own- <br />er-occupancy requirement being constitutional. See Anderson v. <br />Provo City Corp., 108 P.3d 7091 (Utah 2005); Kasper v. Town <br />of Brookhaven, 142 A.D.2d 213,535 N.YS.2d 621 (N.Y 1988). <br />The court found the cases did not constitute binding authority, <br />and noted they were at odds with its own holding in its prior <br />case law. <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use-Town issues blanket <br />variance allowing existing mobile homes in <br />mobile home park be replaced with new homes <br /> <br />Neighboring homeowner challenges this allowance as <br />an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use under the <br />zoning regulations <br /> <br />Citation: Wiltzius v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Milford, <br />106 Conn. App. 1, 940 A.2d 892 (2008) <br />CONNECTICUT (02/26/08)-Candle Hill Mobile Home Park <br />(the Park) was an existing nonconforming use under the town's zon- <br />ing regulations. The Park existed prior to the adoption of zoning reg- <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />36 <br />