Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Page 2 -- February 25, 2004 Z.B. Nonconforming Use -- Town sues landowner over horses and signage violations Landowner claims town cannot make any further complaints regarding add~'onal violations CONNECTICUT (01./20/04) -- The town of Redding sued Ammirata fo~' con- tmued zoning violations involving the number of horses on his property and some nonconforming signage. The lawsuit ended in the town's favor. After the lawsuit, the town issued another perraanent injunction prohibiting Arnmirata from maintaining more than nine horses on his property unless he re- ceived approval for a land management plan pursuant to the zoning regulations. The order also addressed setback issues regarding paddocks on the property. Ammirata sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Arnmirata appealed, arguing the town could have litigated the paddock setback issue and the general requirement of the filing of a land management plan in the prior lawsuit. He claimed the town didn't do so, so it could not enforce the new order. DECISION: Affirmed. The issues of a 25-foot setback for paddocks and the municipality's right to request future management plans was never litigated. A municipal agency was not barred from later enforcement of its zoning reg~alations by vixtue of the fact it brought an earlier injunction against other distinct and separate violations of its ordinances. Zoning regulations sought the elimination of nonconforming uses, not the enlargement of them. A nonco~'orming use could not be established through an existing use of land that was commenced or maintained in violation of a zoning ordinance. If a municipality could be barred from the prosecution of actual zoning viola- tions merely because it did not join these violations in an earlier injunction proceeding against other violations, the effect would be to expand noncon~ forming uses rather than eliminate them. It was important to recognize zoning violations often come to the attention of e~brcement offici',zls by piecemeal complaints of other property owners. Both the municipality and any neighboring property owners should be able to enforce abatement of violations to compel uniform uses within a given district. Citation: Ammirara v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Redding, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 20640 (2004). see also: R & R Pool & Patio Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 778 A.2d 61 (2001). see also: Marone v. Marbury, 707 A.2d 725 (199~). Nonconforming Use-- Restaurant owner paves over grassy area on p~'emises Claims this did not expand or change existing nonconforming use CObR'FECTiCUT (12/03/03) --Scott operated a restaurant on land owned by Mystic Seaport.