Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Z.B. September i0, 2005 -- Page 7 Appeal -- Developer argues question already litigated Valet parking lot had been issue of 1995 cease-and-desist order Citation: Windsor Locks Associates v. Planning and Zoning Commission'of the Town of Windsor Locks, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 22842 (2005) CONNECTICUT (07/19/05)- In 1999, PRF of Connecticut Inc. applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission for site plan approval. The site plan contem- plated moving an existing valet parking lot from the front to the rear of its property and constructing a hotel in the original parking lot location. The com- mission approved the plan. Windsor Locks Associates owned property next to the planned develop- ment. Windsor Locks claimed the operation of the valet parking lot was an illegal, nonconforming use, and, accordingly, the commission lacked the au- thority to approve the site plan allowing for continuance of such use. Windsor Locks sued, and the court ruled in its favor. PRF appealed, arguing the question of the parking lot already had been Liti- gated in a 1995 administrative decision from the town's zoning board of appeals regarding the rescinding of a cease-and-desist order for abandonment of the use. it claimed the issue of the parking lot's legality couldn't be litigated again. DECISION: Affirmed. It was clear the issues before the board and the commission were not iden- tical and that the issue of legal nonconformance was not actually decided in the 1995 decision. The issue in the present action, the legality of the valet parking lot as a preexisting nonconforming use, differed from that litigated before the board, whether PRF had abandoned use of its property as a valet parking lot for six months and had intended such abandonment. In the proceedings before the bdard, the legality of the valet parking lot to begin with, apparendy, was assumed. In particular, the zoning officer's letter to the principals of PRF directing them to cease and desist operations did not mention the lot's initial legality, but focused on abandonment. Only the regula- tion pertaining to abandonment was cited. Similarly, a letter from PRF's counsel notifying the board that PRF intended to appeal from the officer's order included arguments solely addressed to the issue of abandonment. Finally, transcripts of the two public hearings at which PRF's appeal was heard by the board revealed the board focused solely on PRF's purported abandonment of the use of its property for valet parking. The legality of the lot's nonconformity was not discussed. Therefore, the issue of legal nonconformance was not raised, submitted, or detern-fined by the board. see also: Urbanowicz v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 865 A.2d 474 (2005). 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For moro information please call (617) 542-0048. 209