Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

Page 4-- June 25,2006 a sig,n, the ordinance contemplated a sign as being a structure meeting all four parts of the test spelled out in the ordinance. The appeals court a~eed with the lower court's f'mding that a structure must meet all four prongs of the definition to be considered a sign -- and therefore be subject to the provisions of the sign ordinance. Since there was no error of law, the lower court had not abused its discretion. The board's other claims were dismissed, and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. see also: Tellez v. City of Socorro, 164 &V~3d 823 (2005). . Ordinance -- Landowner disputes ordinance language Claims prior land certificate can be used for new landowner's business Citation: Glenn v. New Haven' Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, at New Haven, No. CV054010376S (2006) CONNECTICUT (03/30/06) -- Hall wanted to operate an auto repair business on property that he had purchased from another auto repair shop. To operate an auto repair business, Hall had to obtain a repairer's license for himself. Part of the requirements for a repairer's License was a certificate stating that the land was suitable for an auto repair business. Since the previous owner already had obtained such documentation, Hall believed that he could get a repairer's license for himself without applying for a new certificate. Glenn, a neighboring property owner, sued. Glenn claimed that the issue of the land's suitability had to be revisited. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Glenn. The statutory scheme required Hall to obtain a certificate of approval him- self as a prerequisite to his license application. The securing of a repairer's license was a two-step procedure. The relevant law stated explicitly that "any person who desires to obtain a license for ... repairing motor vehicles shall first obtain and present to the commissioner a certificate of approval of the location for which such License is desixed." It was only then that the applicant could go to the commissioner and the local zoning board to get a repalrer's license. It was true that the certificate ran with the land, because such a certificate depended on the suitability of the land and not the suitability of the applicant. However, the fact that the land was used for auto repair for many years did not absolve a new purchaser who wanted to operate the same business from apply- ing for a certificate of approval. Ultimately, ali subsequent purchasers of the land who wanted to receive a repairer's license had to obtain a certificate of location approval whether or not the certificate was obtained by the pr/or owner. see also: Vincino v. Zi~A, 611 A.2d 444 (J992). © 2006 Ouinlan IJul)lishing Greul). Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617} 542-0048. 182