Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

pag~ 6 ~ September 15, 1996 Z.B. their best to avoid a finding that the property was denuded of any zoning classification. Such a result would be unreasonable and absurd. ! Union Oil Co. v. Worthington, 405 _N.£.2d 277 (1980). State ex reI. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells, 481 N.E. 2d 632 (1985). Nonconforming Use -- Which came first, the plumbing business or the ZOning regulations? ? Conetta v. Zoning Board of Ai2peals of the City of. Stamford, 677A.2d ' 987 (ConnecticuO 1996 ' ~ In 1950, Sessa's father bought property in the city of Stamford, Conn., and started building a house on it. Sessa's cousin (who claimed to help build the house), uncle and mother all said Sessa's father immediately started using the property for a plumbing business. In 1951, the city enacted its first zoning regulations, which put the prop- erty in a residential zone. Commercial uses were prohibited in that zone. ~ In 1952, Sessa's father finished the house. In 1980, Sessa's father died. Soon after, Sessa got the house. i In 1993 Sessa's neighbor, Conetta, told the city zoning enforcement of- ricer Sessa was illegally running a plumbing business. According to Conetta, Sessa's plumbing business did not exist before the city enacted its zoning regulations. The officer investigated Conetta's charges. He spoke with Sessa, inspected the property, and read sworn statements from Sessa's cousin, uncle and mother. ne officer concluded the business was a legal continuation of a nonconform- lng use. ~ Conetta appealed the officer's decision to the city's Zoning Board of Ap- peals. At the hearing, Sessa's lawyer said Sessa's uncle and cousin were there t_o testify that while building the house, Sessa's father had pipes all over the Property, and set aside an area for plumbing trucks. The lawyer said Sessa m ~ho was present and ready to testify m apprenticed with his father while in .high school and then started running the family business. ~ The board agreed Sessa's business was a legal nonconforming use. It found ~he Sessas ran the business continuously from 1951. ~ Conetta appealed to court. He said the business didn't exist before the Zoning regulations, Sessa added a four-car garage to house the plumbing busi- ness, and Sessa abandoned the use between 1985 and 1990 when he operated ~elsewhere. i The court reversed the board's decision, saying it was arbitrary. The court i0md the house wasn't finished until after the regulations were adopted, and mo local phone books showed a plumbing business at the property before that time. The court found it difficult to believe a lot under construction could be fused for a business. Because it found the use did not preexist the zoning regulations, the court did not consider whether Sessa expanded or ever aban- doned the use. Sessa and the board appealed. DECISION: Reversed.