Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />July 10, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 13 <br /> <br />,/',\ <br />( ) mitted as of right. (Deojay first claimed his activities were for blueberry <br />farming one year after the ZEO issued the first notice of violation.) <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the lower court court's <br />issuance of the injunction was proper. <br />The court explained that under Connecticut statutory law, Conn. Gen. <br />Stat. ~ 8-12, if land was used in violation of an ordinance or regulation, <br />any official having jurisdiction could file a legal action seeking an injunc- <br />tion to prevent the illegal activities. The court said that, in general, "[a] <br />party seeking injunctive rylief had the burden of alleging and proving ir- <br />reparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law." Notably, the <br />court emphasized that a zoning enforcement officer did not have to allege <br />and prove irreparable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy for an <br />injunction to issue. Section 8-12 already presumed that no adequate alter- <br />native remedy existed and that the injury was irreparable. Thus, in order <br />to get an injunction sought, a zoning enforcement officer (or town) only <br />had to prove that an ordinance or regulation had been violated. <br />Having previously concluded that Deojay's use of the property was <br />in violation of the regulations, the court concluded that the lower court <br />had "properly exercised its discretion in ordering the injunctive relief re- <br />\ <br />) quested by the [town] to prevent this unauthorized use." <br /> <br />See also: Gelinas v. Town of West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575, 626 A.2d <br />259 (1993). <br /> <br />See also: Town of Monroe v. Renz, 46 Conn. App. 5, 698 A.2d 328 (1997). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court had also held that: (1) even if the Deojay's <br />use was an agricultural use as a matter of right, it was not exempt <br />from the town's wetlands regulations; and (2) the commission had <br />the authority to require a bond as a condition of approval of Deo- <br />jay's drainage application. <br /> <br />First Amendment-Adult establishments <br />challenge validity of ordinance limiting their <br />location <br /> <br />They say that "secondary adverse effects" of a particular <br />(, ) adult establishment must be considered <br /> <br />Citation: Independence News, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 2009 WL <br />1533166 (4th Cir. 2009) <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />49 <br />