Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 14 <br />"as applied" to them. The as -applied challenge was not raised on a prior appeal and <br />so could not be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. <br />Constitutionality of Zoning <br />Enforcement/Equal Protection— <br />Town denies property owner's <br />application for an extension of a <br />permit allowing mobile home to <br />remain on property after permanent <br />home is destroyed by fire <br />Property owner challenges permit denial and zoning <br />enforcement as a violation of constitutional equal <br />protection rights <br />Citation: Komondy v. Gioco, 2017 WL 2290148 (D. Conn. 2017) <br />CONNECTICUT (05/25/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />town violated a property owner's equal protection rights under a "class of one <br />theory" in denying the property owner's application for an extension of a <br />permit allowing her to remain on her property in a mobile home after her per- <br />manent home was destroyed by a fire. <br />The Background/Facts: Marguerite and Christopher Komondy lived in a <br />historic home on property they owned in the Town of Chester (the "Town"). <br />On March 5, 2005, their home was destroyed by fire, with damage so extensive <br />that the structure had to be demolished. Subsequently, Mrs. Komondy obtained <br />a permit from the Town to remain on her property in a temporary mobile home <br />for six months while a permanent home was reconstructed. Upon expiration of <br />the permit, Mrs. Komondy applied for an extension, which was denied by the <br />Town's Zoning Enforcement Officer (the "ZEO"). Section 113B.5 of the <br />Town's Zoning Regulation explicitly related to the placement of "a temporary <br />dwelling on premises . . . during construction of [the] owner's permanent <br />dwelling" on that site. That section provided that "such mobile home shall not <br />remain upon said premises for more than six months from the time that it is <br />first placed thereon." The Town also denied Mrs. Komondy's application for a <br />variance. <br />Mrs. Komondy's appealed the denials, and her appeals were ultimately <br />dismissed in court. The court found no "proof of exceptional difficulty or <br />unusual hardship" to warrant a variance. <br />In July 2006, after the mobile home remained on the Komondy's property <br />for more than sixteen months, the Town issued a Cease & Desist Order, direct- <br />2017 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />