Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

September 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin The court agreed with Crisman,finding that he had satisfied all of the requirements necessary to invoke the doctrine of municipal estoppel. Essentially, the court found that Crisman, in reliance on the zoning permit issued to him by the Town's authorized representative, Bouteiller, began construction and expended more than $100,000 on the project prior to the issuance of the cease and desist order. For those reasons, the court found that the Town should be estopped from enforc- ing the cease and desist order. The ZBA and David M. Geremia ("Geremia"), an abutting land- owner, who had intervened in the case, appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the doctrine of munic- ipal estoppel applied to bar the Town from enforcing the cease and desist order against Crisman's construction of the garage. In so holding, the court explained that in seeking municipal estoppel, Crisman had a substantial burden of proof. Crisman needed to establish that: (1) an authorized agent of the Town had done or said something calculated or intended to induce Crisman to believe that certain facts existed and to act on that belief; (2) Crisman had exercised due dili- gence to ascertain the truth and not only lacked knowledge of the true state of things, but also had no convenient means of acquiring that knowledge; (3) Crisman had changed his position in reliance on those facts; and (4) Crisman would be subjected to a substantial loss if the Town were permitted to negate the acts of its agents. The court found that Crisman established all of those necessary factors: (1) Bouteiller, as the Town's authorized agent, made state- ments and took actions calculated to induce Crisman to believe that he was proceeding in compliance with zoning regulations and to induce him to act on that belief; (2) Crisman proved that he had exercised due diligence to ascertain the truth and that he did not know that his proposed structure was not a permissible accessory building and that he had no convenient means of acquiring that knowledge; (3) Crisman relied on Bouteiller's advice and the issuance of the zoning permit; and (4) Crisman's expenditure of more than $100,000 would be a substan- tial loss if the cease and desist order was enforced. See also: O'Connor v. City of Waterbury, 286 Conn. 732, 945 A.2d 936 (2008). 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters