Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/2009

Home

July 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 13 Zoning Bulletin Enforcement of Regulations-Court issues injunction prohibiting landowner from conducting regulated activities until he complies with town regulations Landowner challenges injunction, claiming zoning enforcement officer did not meet burden required for injunction to issue Citation: Town of Canterbury v. Deojay, 114 Conn. App. 695, 2009 WL 1497097 (2009) CONNECTICUT (06/02/09)-In October 2004, Christopher Deo- jay purchased property (the "Property") in the town. Soon after, Deo- jay began clearing trees from the Property. After discovering that Deojay had dug a drainage ditch and removed trees in and around wetlands on the Property, the town's zoning and wetlands enforcement officer (the "ZEO") notified Deojay that he was in violation of the town's inland wetlands and watercourses regulations (the "regulations"). :when, over a six month period, Deojay continued to cut trees in the wetland, the / ') \ ZEO issued a cease and desist order. That order prohibited Deojay from any further activity on t~e Property until: he submitted an application for such work; and it was approved by the town's inland wetlands and watercourses commission (the "Commission"). Six months later, after Deojay cut down more trees in the wetland and dug a pond on the Prop- erty, the town, the commission and the ZEO (collectively, the "town") filed an enforcement action in court. In the enforcement action, the town asked the court to enforce the cease and desist order that had been issued by the ZEO. It also asked the court to issue an injunction: (1) prohibiting Deojay from conduct- ing regulated activities in the wetlands on the Property; and (2) requiring Deojay to restore the wetlands that had been damaged by his unauthor- ized regulated activities. The court found that Deojay had "knowingly and willfully conduct- ed activities on [the Property] in violation of the wetland regulations." The court issued an injunction, prohibiting Deojay from continuing any work on the property until: (1) specific conditions set by the commission were met; or (2) he otherwise brought his activities into compliance with all regulations; and (3) the cease and desist order was withdrawn. Deojay appealed. Deojay claimed, among other things, that the court improperly granted the injunction. He maintained the injunction was im- proper because his activities were for an agricultural use that was per- 6 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 48