Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

Page 6 --.September 25, '2004 Er,fforcement-- Landowner complnins zoning officer, doesn't r'~,3)ond to complaints Wants oJ~cer to halt construction on neighboring property Circtrion: £ongrnoor v. zyilxen, U.S. District Co~trt for r, he District of Connecric'a~, iVo. $.'020v1595(JBA) (2004) CONNECTICUT (08/06/04) -- Longmoor was involved in a property dispute with several neighbors regarding the use of an access road across her proper~y and subsequent construction to build a new one. On May 9 Longmoor wrote to Nilsen, Bar~amsted s Zomn= Enforcement Officer and Inland Wetlands OffMer. She complained excavation and construc- tion occumng on Langer's ne~ghbonng prope~y were not completely pro- tected by a siltation fence, which resu[ted m the ruination of a pond on her property. On May 1 ~, Longmoor sent Nilsen another letter stating her po~d was ~Mll of silt, ac~0wledging aw~eness a silt fence had been installed on Langer's prope~y, sur~sing another sourc= of silt must exist, and requesting i~ediate investigation. Nilsen conducted an investigation, but found no evidence of siltation co,rig from Lan~er s propeay. A Depa~meat of Envffonmental Pro- tection investigator confined Nilsen's findings, Longmoor sent several more ietters asNng for Nilsen to issue a petit or a cease and desis~ order for the construction on Lan=er s prope~y. Niisea sponded that he had seen no violations during his inspection. Longmoor sued, arguing the town ~tendonally ignored her complaints but entertained those of her neighbors. DEC.ION: ~ favor of the to~. There was no evidence Longmoor was treated differently from anyone else. in resppase to Longmoor's May 9 letter, Nilsen apparently o~dered Langer to install ~ silt ~ence. Langer did so. In response to Longmoor's May ~ ~ lesser, Nilsen conducted a full same day on-site investigation of Longmoor's and Langer's propemes and saw no evidenc= siltation was flowing onto Lon,moor s prope~y, a finding admitted by Longmoor and confi~ed by the Department of Environmental Protection. Longmoor reiterated essentially th¢ same Complaints by letter on June and June 14. Nilsen provided a written reply by June 27. By contrast, Nilsen ignored neighbor compiaints regarding Longmoor tuning a boarding house and catering parries, and only acted on neighbor complaints concerning sion on her tot ~hat were .consistent with what Nils~n ah'eadv ~ew from his earlier on-site verification off the proper~y, fn fact. there was no evidence Nilsen ever responded to complaints regarding ~he boarding house ~nd parties. L ttlma~e~y, Loagmoor's complaints were without medt. .... z~o: Ho?~en,~soc .... "-z~u-e~s '.,: &c,gr?orc~red F~IhTge ot'~fineoia,., 273 ~3d 494 (2001). 138 .,~; 2cc,z 2umian -%btispaacj '2roue:. z,.rty re?;roauc:lon s oron~b~[ec.:', z,::r more t;iorma[[on .':teasa :all