Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2011 J Volume 5 I No. 20 Enforcement — Landowner, ZBA Enter into Stipulated Judgment over Alleged Zoning Violations After court finds landowner in contempt of judgment, he appeals arguing activities on his property were permitted Citation: Przekopski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Colchester, 131 Conn. App. 178, 26 A.3d 657 (2011) CONNECTICUT (09/06/11)—This case addresses the issue of whether after entering into a stipulated judgment in response to an allegation of a zoning violation, a landowner can later raise arguments that his activities were not in violation of zoning laws. The Background/Facts: Leonard Przekopski, Jr. ( "Przekopski ") and his wife Karen Przekopski owned real property in the Town of Colchester, Con- necticut (the "Town"). Przekopski used the property for a variety of indus- trial activities, including: the excavation and processing of sand and grav- el; soil manufacturing; recycling of earth materials; and the bulk storage of manure. In May 2006, the Town's zoning enforcement officer ordered Przekopski to cease and desist "any and all excavation, recycling activities, and build storage of manure" on the property until a zoning permit for such activities had been obtained. Przekopski appealed to the Town's Zoning Board of Ap- peals (the "ZBA ") . The ZBA upheld the enforcement order. Przekopski then appealed to the superior court. Eventually, Przekopski and the ZBA entered into a stipulation regarding the property. They agreed that judgment would be rendered in favor of the ZBA. They also agreed that Przekopski was required to file an application for a special exception from the zoning regulations for the excavation activities, and an application for a variance from the zoning regulations for the processing and recycling of earth materials. Under the stipulation, Przekopski was permitted to continue his activities "until the earlier of August 21, 2007, or April 23, 2007 [if Prze- kopski did not submit the applications, as stipulated]." The Przekopskis submitted a special exception application to the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission (the "PZC"). On November 28, 2007, the PZC denied the application. However, Przekopski thereafter continued to conduct excavation and recycling activities on the property. On February 25, 2008, the ZBA filed a motion for contempt. The court ordered the excavation and recycling activities on the Przekopskis' proper- ty to cease. The court also provided that if such operations did not cease by March 17, 2008, a fine of $1,000 per day would be ordered. Under a March 19, 2008, order, the court extended the deadline to cease operations to March 26, 2008, with the fine retroactive to March 19, 2008, if opera- tions did not cease. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 5