Title: Smith Bros. Woodland Management, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals

State: connecticut

Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court

Document:

******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
SMITH BROTHERS WOODLAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF
BROOKFIELD
(SC 18220)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and McLachlan, Js.
Argued September 23—officially released October 27, 2009
Brian A. Lema, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas W. Beecher, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The zoning enforcement officer of the
town of Brookfield issued a cease and desist order to
the plaintiff, Smith Brothers Woodland Management,
LLC, for the improper storage of logs and land clearing
equipment on its property. The plaintiff appealed from
the cease and desist order to the defendant, the zoning
board of appeals of the town of Brookfield (board),
which upheld the order. The plaintiff then appealed
from the board’s ruling to the trial court, which sus-
tained the plaintiff’s appeal in part. After obtaining certi-
fication to appeal, the board then appealed to the
Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s judg-
ment. Smith Bros. Woodland Management, LLC v. Zon-
ing Board of Appeals, 108 Conn. App. 621, 632, 949
A.2d 1239 (2008). We granted the plaintiff’s petition for
certification to appeal limited to the following issue:
‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the
issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance with con-
ditions precluded the plaintiff from engaging in other
preexisting, nonconforming uses?’’ Smith Bros. Wood-
land Management, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
289 Conn. 908, 957 A.2d 872 (2008). We conclude that
certification was improvidently granted and dismiss
the appeal.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the
following relevant facts and procedural history. ‘‘Prior
to the plaintiff’s purchase of the subject property on
April 1, 1999, the premises were owned by John J. Kolin-
chak, Jr., from 1971 to 1999 . . . . On March 23, 1999,
Kolinchak submitted an application for a certificate of
zoning compliance to the Brookfield zoning commis-
sion (commission) for use of the property as a general
contractor site with nonretail logging as an accessory
use. When the premises were purchased by the plaintiff,
the application was taken over by the [plaintiff]. The
application was denied on March 26, 1999, but the plain-
tiff requested that the denial be reconsidered . . . .’’
Smith Bros. Woodland Management, LLC v. Zoning
Board of Appeals, supra, 108 Conn. App. 622–23.
Thereafter, ‘‘[t]he application for the certificate of
zoning compliance was granted by the commission with
the stipulation that the provisions in the letter [that the
plaintiff had submitted along with its application] be
part of the certificate, and a prohibition against the
marshaling of logs, with marshaling defined as ‘the gath-
ering, storing on site, [and] removal to another location.’
The plaintiff did not appeal from the imposition of the
stipulations or take any further action regarding the
certificate of zoning compliance.
‘‘The commission inspected the subject property in
2005 and found evidence of grinding material, storage
of logs in excess of twelve feet in length, additional log
storage outside of the approved area of the property
and the presence of numerous unregistered vehicles
that constituted an illegal junkyard. . . . [T]he com-
mission [subsequently] voted to issue a cease and desist
order . . . for the improper storing of logs and the on-
site storage and maintenance of unregistered motor
vehicles. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of
the commission to the board.’’ Id., 624–25.
This certified appeal followed. The plaintiff claims
that the Appellate Court’s reversal of the trial court’s
judgment was improper because the town zoning regu-
lations did not authorize the commission to utilize a
certificate of zoning compliance to regulate noncon-
forming uses. After examining the entire record on
appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments
of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in
this case should be dismissed on the ground that certifi-
cation for this appeal was improvidently granted.
This appeal is dismissed.