Town of Greenwich v. Kristoff
| Decision Date | 13 May 1980 |
| Citation | 180 Conn. 575,430 A.2d 1294 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF GREENWICH et al. v. Lawrence E. KRISTOFF. |
David R. Connell, Stamford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Robert R. Sheldon, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was T. Paul Tremont, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).
Before COTTER, C. J., and BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.
In November of 1974, the plaintiffs, the town of Greenwich and Maurice F. Roddy, the town's zoning enforcement officer, brought an action seeking to enjoin the defendant from using his premises as a rooming house on the ground that such use violated the Greenwich zoning regulations. By way of a special defense, the defendant alleged that his use of the premises in question constituted a valid, nonconforming use under the Greenwich building zone regulations. After a trial, the court refused to issue an injunction "in order that the defendant may be permitted to apply for a change of use." From that judgment, the plaintiffs have appealed.
The following facts are not in dispute: In 1966 the defendant purchased a three-story building located at 225 Mill Street, Greenwich. At the time, the second and third stories each had two apartments, two furnished rooms and a bathroom. Sometime after 1966, the second and third floors were altered so that each floor now contains nine furnished rooms, three common bathrooms and a common kitchen. The eighteen rooms are separately leased to eighteen individuals. The defendant did not obtain the necessary certificate of occupancy from the zoning enforcement officer for this change of use.
From 1966 to September 15, 1976, the premises in question were located in a B-C zone. From September 15, 1976, to the present time, the premises have been located in the LBR zone. Under both zones, rooming house use is not permitted.
On September 6, 1974, the plaintiff zoning enforcement officer issued an order to the defendant to cease and desist the use of the premises as a rooming house. The defendant did not comply with the order, nor did he appeal the order to the zoning board of appeals. The plaintiffs thereafter brought this action for an injunction. 1
In refusing to issue the injunction the court stated that it had not resolved the issue of whether the plaintiffs had established a violation of the use regulation. Nor did it resolve the issue of whether the defendant had a valid nonconforming use. The court did indicate that it had not resolved those issues because they would be moot if the defendant were to apply for and obtain the requisite certificate of occupancy for a rooming house use.
The court did, however, find that on September 5, 1974, the plaintiff zoning enforcement officer ordered the defendant to cease and desist the present use as a rooming house since it was in violation of the zoning regulations and to convert the premises to a multiple family use. The cease and desist order was, in effect, a determination that the defendant did not have a valid nonconforming use. Bianco v. Darien, 157 Conn. 548, 558, 254 A.2d 898 (1969).
Clearly the defendant had a statutory right to appeal the cease and desist order to the zoning board of appeals. 2 The zoning board would in that proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Wethersfield v. PR Arrow, LLC
...defendant should not be permitted to present any such evidence or argument in this case." Relying principally on Greenwich v. Kristoff , 180 Conn. 575, 430 A.2d 1294 (1980), the plaintiffs claimed that "[s]ince the defendant chose to withdraw its [board] appeal of the [order] prior to that ......
-
12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC v. Gordon
...intent to ordain it an action to enforce in itself." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 334, 873 A.2d 1017; see also Greenwich v. Kristoff, 180 Conn. 575, 578-79, 430 A.2d 1294 (1980). 7. "The plaintiff claims that the lease was illegal ab initio. Specifically, it argues that the terms of the leas......
-
O & G Industries, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Beacon Falls, 15063
...and adequate administrative relief, and to give the reviewing court the benefit of the local board's judgment.' Greenwich v. Kristoff, 180 Conn. 575, 578, 430 A.2d 1294 (1980)." Planning & Zoning Commission v. Craft, 12 Conn.App. 90, 94, 529 A.2d 1328, cert. denied, 205 Conn. 804, 531 A.2d ......
-
Loulis v. Parrott
...and adequate administrative relief, and to give the reviewing court the benefit of the local board's judgment.' Greenwich v. Kristoff, 180 Conn. 575, 578, 430 A.2d 1294 (1980). It also 'relieves courts of the burden of prematurely deciding questions that, entrusted to an agency, may receive......