Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Z.B. August 10, 1998 -- Page 7, commissioner told the owners they needed a certificate of appropriateness be- fore removing exterior windows because it would be an "environmental change." Despite the warnings, the owners sold both interior and exterior leaded glass windows from the property. The city notified the owners that they had violated the ordinance and ordered them to repair the property. Several weeks later, the owners applied for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the house. Old West End sought a court order to prevent the city from considering the owner's request to demolish the property until the Windows were reinstalled and the property was restored to its original condition. It also asked the court to further amend the 1982 decree so that the removal of interior fixtures was expressly included in the definition of "environmental changes." The associa- tion also argued the city should be held in contempt of the decree. In 1997, the court ruled in favor of Old West End, amending the decree to state that removing interior fixtures was also an "environmental change." The court ordered the city to refrain from. taking any action that would violate the decree. The court refused to hold the city in contempt. - The city appealed, challenging tl~e court's expanded definition of "envi- ronmental changes." DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the city. The trial court shouldn't have expanded the definition of "environmental changes" to include interior changes. The ordinance defined "environmental change" as "any exterior alteration, demolition, removal, or new construction." The ordinance also defined "alter- ation'' as exterior architectural changes, so the term "environmental change" was meant to apply only to exterior modifications. Moreover, the zoning ordinance that created the historic commission stated that the guidelines and standards in the ordinance pertained to "exterior archi- tectural and design considerations." Because the ordinance made many re. fer- ences to exterior changes and no references to interior changes, it was clear "environmental changes" wasn't melnt to include interior alterations. see also: Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Frantz, 555 N.E. 2d 630 (1990). Permit Challenged -- Neighbor tries to enforce land use restriction Citation: Wood v. Amer, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of Stamford-Norwalk, at Stamford, No CV-9701606635 (]998) Wood owned property in Greenwich, Conn. In 1935, an adjacent parcel (Lot 10) was sold to the owner of Lot 11, with the restriction that Lots 10 and tl would be considered one parcel and that at any time there could be only one house erected on the land. Because there was already a house on Lot 11, con- struction of another house was prohibited. Every subsequent sale between 1935 and 1971 involving Lots 10 and 11 included this restriction. In 1971, a couple bought Lots 10 and 11; their deed included the restric- tion. The husband later transferred his interest in Lot 10 to his wife, which violated the restriction. When the husband transferred Lot 10 to his wife he