Laserfiche WebLink
z.g. <br /> <br />May 10, 1999 -- Page 7 <br /> <br />stop the violations. The zoning officer ordered Hallahan to stop operating his <br />asphalt business and to remove all equipment from the site. <br /> Hallahan appealed to the zoning appeals board. The board affirmed the <br />cease and desist order, finding Hallahan didn't show the business had been in <br />operation since before the town passed its zoning regulations. <br /> Hallahan appealed to court, arguing the business predated the town's zon- <br />ing regulations, so it was a legal, nonconforming use. According to Hallahan, <br />the board couldn't enforce the cease and desist order because the town zoning <br />officer's letters to the state showed the town had expressly approved and au- <br />thorized Hallahan's business. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the board. <br /> The board couldn't order Hallahan to shut down his business. <br /> The board correctly found Hallahan's use of the property wasn't a legal, <br />nonconforming use. While there was evidence the former owner did some mi- <br />nor clearing and preparatory work on the property before the town adopted its <br />zoning regulations, these activities weren't the same as the current property <br />use as an asphalt business. Nothing showed the construction company ever <br />deposited waste materials on the property under that contract. The issue in <br />determining whether the business was a nonconforming use was whether the <br />property was used for such a business before the zoning regulations were <br />adopted, not whether someone had a right to use the property for such a business. <br /> However, Hallahan showed the court should bar the town from enforcing <br />the cease and desist order against him because the town expressly authorized <br />him to continue using his property for his asphalt business. The zoning officer's <br />letters led Hallahan to believe his business was a legal, nonconforming use and <br />induced him to sign contracts with the state in reliance on those letters. <br /> Hallahan had no reason to believe his use of the property was illegal, as the <br />use had existed without question for a long time. Hallahan sought and received <br />the zoning officer's approval in numerous letters issued in good faith and within <br />the scope of the zoning officer's authority -- even though the conclusions in <br />the letters were wrong. <br /> <br />Citation: Hallahan v. Westbrook Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court of <br />Connecticut, Judicial Dist. O. f Middlesex, at Middletown, No. CV 9680697 <br />(1999). <br /> <br />Variance -- Can board grant variance because use will be good buffer <br />between districts? <br /> <br />NEW JERSEY (3/10/99) Basralian wanted to operate a funeral home on <br />two lots he owned in the borough of Oradell, N.J. The lots formed a "Z" shape <br />and fronted on two separate roads. One lot was in a business zone that permitted <br />only general and professional office buildings. The other lot was divided, with <br />pan zoned residential and part zoned business. <br /> Funeral homes weren't a permitted use in any district in the borough, so <br /> <br /> <br />