Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 17 whether the doctrine of municipal estoppel applied, thereby precluding the enforcement of a cease and desist order that prohibited construction of a proposed structure. The Background/Facts: Forrest E. Crisman, Jr. ("Crisman") owned property on the east shore of Bantam Lake in Morris, Connecticut (the "Town"). The primary dwelling on the property was less than 800 square feet in size. Prior to December 2007, a one -car garage erected circa 1900 also was located on the property. The garage was a preexist- ing, legal nonconforming structure. In December 2007, a tree fell on the garage and caused substantial damage. Shortly after the tree damaged the garage, Crisman met with the town's zoning enforcement officer, Leon Bouteiller ("Bouteiller"). Crisman wanted to obtain the requisite permits and approvals for the replacement and enlargement of the garage. After repeated meetings between Crisman and Bouteiller, Bouteiller issued a zoning permit on April 23, 2008. The zoning permit provided for restoration of the exist- ing nonconforming garage and construction of a 1,536-square-foot addition. In July 2008, at the direction of the Town's planning and zoning commission (the "PZC") Bouteiller issued a cease and desist order to Crisman. Although not clear in the cease and desist order, it was later determined that the PZC issued the cease and desist order because Crisman's proposed structure was not subordinate to the primary dwell- ing on the property. Therefore, the Town determined that the structure was not a permissible accessory building under the Town's zoning regulations. At the time the cease and desist order was issued, Crisman had already had expended approximately $100,000 on the project. Crisman appealed to the Town's zoning board of appeals (the "ZBA"). The ZBA upheld the cease and desist order. Crisman then appealed to superior court. The court found there was sufficient evidence in the record to sup- port the ZBA's conclusion that the proposed building was not a permis- sible accessory building. Crisman argued, however, that the doctrine of municipal estoppel should apply, barring the Town from enforcing the cease and desist order. The doctrine of estoppel may be applicable to municipalities in the enforcement of zoning laws. "There are two essential elements to an estoppel: (1) the party [here, the Town] must do or say something that is intended or calculated to induce another [here, Crisman] to believe in the existence of certain facts and to act upon that belief'; and (2) "the other party [here, Crisman], influenced thereby, must actually change his position or do some act to his injury which he otherwise would not have done . . .." ©2012 Thomson Reuters 3