Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2012

Home

March 10, 2012 I Volume 6 No. 5 Zoning Bulletin was "to separate incompatible land uses, ... [t]he Ordinance [did] not explicitly separate different land uses, nor [did] it explicitly declare any land uses incompatible with any others." After examining and comparing the traditional characteristics of zon- ing ordinances to the characteristics and purposes of the Ordinance, the court concluded that, despite having some similarities to traditional zon- ing ordinances, the Ordinance was not a zoning ordinance. Thus, the court held that the Ordinance did not need county board approval, and was a valid exercise of the Town's nonzoning police power. See also: Heitman v. City of Mauston Common Council, 226 Wis. 2d 542, 595 N.W.2d 450 (Ct. App. 1999). Case Note: In its holding, the court identified, in-depth, the "charac- teristics that are traditionally present in a zoning ordinance." Zoning Inspections —Residents Refuse Zoning Inspection of Property They argue zoning inspection violates their Fourth Amendment rights Citation: Town of Bozrah v. Chmurynski, 2012 WL 371893 (Conn. 2012) CONNECTICUT (02/14/12)—This case addressed what burden must be proved before a court may issue an order permitting a zoning enforce- ment officer to enter and search a particular property. More specifically, the case addressed the following issues: (1) whether the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies to zoning inspections; (2) how that requirement is 'Satisfied; and (3) whether the proper procedural vehicle for determining whether such an inspection should be authorized is seeking a court -ordered injunction. The Background/Facts: The Chumurynskis resided on property (the "Property") that they owned in the town of Bozrah (the "Town"). In Au- gust 2007, the Town's zoning enforcement officer (the "ZEO") was asked to inspect the Property for "unregistered motor vehicles and other junk" in vio- lation of SS 2.20 and 10.4 of the Town's zoning regulations. The Chumuryn- skis refused to allow the ZEO to inspect their property. The Town then brought an action seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Chumurynskis from refusing consent to an inspection of the Property. The trial court eventually issued an order authorizing the ZEO to in- spect the Property. The Chumurynskis appealed. They claimed that the trial court's order authorizing the zoning inspection of the Property violated their Fourth 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters