Beard v. Town of Monroe

• Decision Date: 04 December 2015
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:13cv1714 (JBA)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: THOMAS BEARD, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF MONROE, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MONROE, and JOSEPH CHAPMAN Defendants.

THOMAS BEARD, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF MONROE, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MONROE,and JOSEPH CHAPMAN Defendants.

Civil No. 3:13cv1714 (JBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

December 4, 2015

RULING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is an action by Plaintiff Thomas Beard against Defendants Town of Monroe ("the Town" or "Monroe"), Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe ("the Commission"), and Joseph Chapman, the Zoning Enforcement Officer ("ZEO") for the Planning and Zoning Commission, alleging violations of Mr. Beard's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.¹ Defendants now move [Doc. # 49] for summary judgment. Oral argument was held on November 30, 2015. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted.

I. Background

In 2003, Plaintiff acquired, from his father, property located at 462 Fan Hill Road in Monroe, Connecticut ("the Property") in a Residential and Farming District D Zone ("RD Zone"). (Defs.' Mem. Supp. [Doc. # 49-1] at 1, 2.)

A. RD Zone Regulations

Under Monroe's Zoning Regulations, "land, buildings, and other structures located in RD Zones were limited to, among other things, (1) a single detached dwelling for one family, (2) farms, nurseries, and greenhouses, (3) roadside farm stand[s] exclusively for the sale of farm produce grown on the premises, (4) customary homes occupations, and (5) municipally owned communications sites and facilities operated or managed by the Town of Monroe." (Id. at 2; see also Monroe Zoning Regulations, Ex. 2 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) Further, "[p]roperties located in RD Zones could have no more than one commercial or combination registered vehicle bearing commercial advertising parked or stored on the premises," and "[a]ny commercial or combination registered vehicle showing commercial advertising had to be garaged or screened." (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 2.) "In addition, no commercial or combination registered vehicle" stored on the property "could exceed one ton" in capacity, and "truck-tractors, commercial semi-trailers, or commercial trailers" could not be parked or stored on RD Zone properties. (Id.)

B. Plaintiff's Uses of the Property

Plaintiff owned several businesses that were based on the Property: an excavation business, a trucking and hauling business, a salvage business, a loam² business, a demolition business, and a snow plowing business. (Id.; see Beard Test., Ex. 5 to Defs.'Mem. Supp. at 6, 13, 14.³) Plaintiff stored the following equipment on the Property: three hydraulic excavators, three plow trucks, four trailers, a truck tractor, a dump truck, a bulldozer, a bucket loader, a John Deere tractor, three backhoes, a loader backhoe, a Bobcat, and a site truck. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 3; see Beard Test. at 16, 21-23.) Of these, the plow trucks, trailers, truck tractor, dump truck, bulldozer, bucket loader, and backhoes were over one ton in capacity, and the plow trucks, trailers, tractor, and dump truck had commercial license plates. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 3; see Beard Test. at 21-23, 29.)

On March 1, 2007, in response to a question about whether Mr. Beard was operating an illegal earth-moving operation on his property, then-ZEO John "Jack" Brandt reported to the Commission that after investigating the matter, he had concluded that Mr. Beard's use of the land was a prior nonconforming use. (Comm'n Minutes Mar. 1, 2007, Ex. A to Pl.'s Opp'n Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. # 53] at 1-2.) An undated memorandum apparently written by Mr. Brandt states that he "did not visit" Mr. Beard's property but did meet with Mr. Beard, who explained to him "that a business has been operating from the property since 1963," and on that basis, Mr. Brandt concluded that the business had been "there forever" and was "not illegal." (Brandt Mem., Ex. B to Pl.'s Opp'n.)

In March 2010, Mr. Beard's neighbors, Michael and Teresa Bauer, spoke with Mr. Brandt about his determination that Mr. Beard's use of his property was not illegal andasked him to reconsider. (Ex. 30 to Reply [Doc. # 59] at 2.) The record does not contain Mr. Brandt's response.

C. The State Court Lawsuit

On June 1, 2010, the Bauers filed a lawsuit against Mr. Beard in Connecticut state court, alleging that Mr. Beard's activities on his property violated the Zoning Regulations and created a private nuisance. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 3; see Bauer Compl., Ex. 7 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) The state court issued a temporary injunction against Mr. Beard on April 15, 2011, ordering him to:

immediately cease and desist . . . from operating any commercial business on his property in violation of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Monroe, including but not limited to (1) the acquisition, or production for sale or delivery, of loam or topsoil, including any of their components, (2) an excavation business and any subcontracting business related thereto; (3) a snowplowing business; (4) a trucking and hauling business; (5) a scrap metal salvage business; and (6) a demolition business.

(Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4; Temp. Inj., Ex. 4 to Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 9.) The court additionally enjoined Mr. Beard from "parking or storing on his property any commercial vehicle that exceeds one ton capacity in violation of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Monroe." (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 4; Temp. Inj. at 9.)

Following the state court ruling, on May 10, 2011, the new Monroe ZEO, Joseph Chapman, issued Mr. Beard a cease and desist letter, in which he notified Mr. Beard that the Town of Monroe expected him to immediately comply "with the decision of the Superior Court . . . by the Honorable Theodore Tyma." (Cease & Desist Ltr., Ex. 8 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) Mr. Beard appealed the cease and desist letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") on May 26, 2011. (Defs.'s Mem. Supp. at 5; see ZBA Appeal, Ex. 10 toDefs.' Mem. Supp.) The ZBA denied his appeal on July 5, 2011. (Defs.'s Mem. Supp. at 5; see ZBA Decision, Ex. 11 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.)

On June 30, 2011, the Town of Monroe and ZEO Chapman moved to intervene in the Bauers' lawsuit "so that they [could] also seek enforcement of the same Zoning Regulations" the Bauers sought to enforce "against the same Defendant[]." (Mot. to Intervene, Ex. 12 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) The court granted their motion on July 14, 2011. (Ex. 13 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) Shortly thereafter, on July 21, 2011, Mr. Beard initiated a suit in state court appealing the ZBA's denial of his appeal (Ex. 15 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.), which was consolidated with the Bauer/Monroe/Chapman suit (see Stip. of Uncontested Facts, Ex. 16 to Defs.' Mem. Supp. ¶ 18). On April 18, 2012, the court issued judgment and a permanent injunction against Mr. Beard, prohibiting him from "operating any excavation business" on his property; "operating any hauling business" on his property; "operating any snowplowing business" on his property; "parking or storing on the Property" more than one commercially registered vehicle; "operating any scrap metal salvage business" on his property; "operating any demolition business" on his property; "selling, or otherwise providing or delivering, to third parties loam or top soil" from his property; and "handling hazardous material or conducting a mining or quarrying operation on the Property." (State Ct. Judgment, Ex. 17 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.)

D. The Other Properties

On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff wrote to Mr. Chapman, "informing" him "of zoning violations" on three properties in Monroe "and requesting that enforcement action be taken." (Beard Compl. Ltr., Ex. 26 to Defs.' Mem. Supp.) Specifically, Mr. Beard sought action against: Westview Farm, the Twombly Property, and the Smith Property.

1. Westview Farm (23 Westview Drive)

Westview Farm, owned by Bernard Sippin, is located in a Residential and Farming District C ("RC") Zone. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 6.) Mr. Sippin sells beef from Westview Farm and he keeps llamas and alpacas there. (Sippin Dep., Ex. 20 to Defs.'s Mem. Supp. at 7.) He used to make hay and grow Christmas trees. (Id.) In addition, Mr. Sippin sells loam from a second, commercial property on Main Street. (Id. at 7-8, 31.) He put up several signs advertising the loam, including one at Westview Farm and one on Main Street. (Id. at 46.) Following Mr. Beard's complaint letter, Mr. Chapman asked Mr. Sippin to remove one of the two signs. (Id. at 46-49; Chapman Dep., Ex. 9 to Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 50.) There is some dispute as to which sign Mr. Chapman asked Mr. Sippin to take down and whether Mr. Sippin in fact removed the sign after Mr. Chapman asked him to do so. (See Sippin Dep. at 46-48; Chapman Dep. at 50.) It is not disputed, however that Mr. Sippin never produced loam, or operated an excavation business, hauling business, scrap metal salvage business, demolition business, or snowplowing business at 23 Westview Drive. (Sippin Dep. at 71-72.)

2. The Twombly Property (146 Cutlers Farm Road)

The Twombly Property, owned by Kenneth Twombly, is located in an RC Zone. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 7.) Mr. Twombly uses his farm to grow trees, and he has additionally obtained a license from the state of Connecticut to compost⁴ and make mulch. (Twombly Dep., Ex. 22 to Defs.' Mem. Supp. at 8.) His permit allows him to sell 1500 yards of compost each year, and in addition, he uses about 1000 yards of composton his property each year. (Id. at 15, 19, 39.) Mr. Twombly has never operated an excavation business, trucking or hauling business, snowplowing business, scrap metal salvage business, or demolition business on his property. (Id. at 59.) He maintains the following equipment on his property: an excavator, a John Deere bucket loader, a screener, and a site truck. (Id. at 37, 39, 40, 50.)

Mr. Twombly testified that no neighbor has ever complained about his activities on his property. (Id. at 25.) There is a dispute about whether, following Mr. Beard's filing of his complaint letter, Mr. Chapman asked Mr. Twombly to remove a sign from his property that...