Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Page 6. May 25, 1999 Z.B. · . was accessory to the permitted daycare and nursery and all the evidence showed noise from the outside activities was minimal. Backiel appealed to court, claiming the board arbitrarily refused to rein- state the cease and desist order because there was no evidence of any legiti- mate reason for the zoning officer to withdraw the order in the fin'st place. BackieI claimed the previous approvals granted to the church didn't include the operation of outdoor facilities so close to her property. She. also claimed the church's outdoor use violated the town zoning ordinance because it was in- compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood and adversely affected property values. Finally, Backiel claimed the church's use amounted to a "public playground" and therefore violated the zoning ordinance. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The church didn't violate the special exceptions that allowed it to operate a daycare center and nursery school. Its outdoor use of the propexty in connec- tion with its nursery school and daycare was an accessory use. The board's decision that the outdoor play area didn't disrupt .the harmony of the neighborhood was reasonable. The daycare and nursery school operated from 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and the 'outdoor play area was used only from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, during Sunday church services, and occasionally at other times during the year by different groups..There was no evidence noise levels were unreasonable. Backiel failed to show the playground reduced property values in the area. She also failed to show the playground was a public playground, which would have placed it under the town's control. The town's zoning regulations didn't prohibit property owners from allowing others to use their property, so the church didn't change the playground into a "public playground" by allowing groups unrelated to the church to use it. Citation: Backiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Trumbull, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of Fairfielc~ at Bridgeport, No. CV 970348617S (1999). see also: Upjohn Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 616A.2d 786 (1992). see also: Wnuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 626 A.2d 698 (1993). Subdivision m Do residential lot-size requirements apply in commercial district that allows houses? GEORGIA (4/5/99) ~ Hail and Trubey were next-door neighbors. Trubey placed two manufactured homes on her lot, which already had a stick-built house on it. Both lots were in a commercial district that allowed "ail uses in R-1 and R-2 Districts." R-1 and R-2 uses included single-family dwellings. Hall sued Trubey~ claiming she violated the county zoning ordinance by placing manufactured homes.on her property. Hall asked the court to order Trubey to remove the. manufactured homes and to prohibit her from further developing her property.. :