Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 2 -- November 25, 2003 7.8. Zoning Code -- Business owner claims code enforcement closed business Locksmith ordered to remove unlicensed vehicles from his property NEW JERSEY (09/15/03) -- Fallick operated a locksmith business for eight years. The township cited him for storing unlicensed and unregistered vehicles outside his business contrary to local zoning laws. Fallick was storing three unlicensed vehicles on his tot, although he was only entitled to store two under the zoning code. Fallick was entitled to appeal. the notice. However, he never did so. After a hearing, Fallick was convicted and fined. Soon thereafter, his lock- smith bus/ness failed. Fallick sued. He attributed his business's failure, at least in part, to his conviction. He argued a sig~aificant portion of his locksmith business involved unlicensed and unregistered cars, and the conviction effectively ended this as- pect of his business. DECISION: Judgment in favor of township. The failure of Fallick's business could not be legally attributed to the township's actions. Fallick's bus/ness was never threatened with immediate or even eventual suspension. Rather, the township merely ordered Fallick to reduce the number of unlicensed and unregistered vehicles stored outside his locksmith business to two. This limitation did not directly cause the failure of his business. According to the evidence, the three vehicles appeared to be stationary for a long period of time, since bushes and weeds were ~owing up around them. Fallick admitted the vehicles had sat on his property for eight months and that one belonged to a man who owed him money, one belonged to his wife, and a third belonged to a customer. In light of these facts, it did not appear Fallick suffered any real injury as a result of the township's enforcement of the code. Citation: Fallick v. DeerfieM Township, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 01-42J4 (JEI) (2003). see also: DeBlasio v. Zoning Board, 53 E3d 592 (1995). see also: Zinermon v. Butch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990). 126 Subdivision -- Individual lots require septic systems Incomplete groundwater tests imply land unsuitably wet CONNECTICUT (09/15/03)- Primus applied for an eight-lot resubdivision from the Coventry. Planning and Zoning Commission. The eight lots were part of the fourth and final phase of a 34-Iot subdivision. Each of the proposed lots was to have its own septic system. The town's subdivision regulations required any lot requiring an individual septic system be approved bv thc town sanitarian.