Page 30 - CLT122820

30 ¦ DECEMBER 28, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

GOVERNMENT • REAL ESTATE An application to operate a farm in an area zoned
for residential use was properly denied, where sub-
stantial evidence supported a town planning com-
Court Held That the “Identifiable Victim/ mission’s conclusion that the proposed use did not
Imminent Harm” Exception Did Not Apply comport with general standards set forth in the
town’s zoning regulation. The Superior Court dis-
CASE: Girolametti v. City of Danbury missed an appeal. In 1987, plaintiffs Jeffrey and
COURT: Waterbury J.D., Complex Litigation Docket Particia Cashman purchased a 3.53 acre parcel of
DOC. NO.: CV-10-6011711 land in the town of Clinton. The Clinton Asses-
COURT OPINION BY: Bellis sor classified the parcel as farmland. The location
DATE: November 23, 2020 • PAGES: 17
Party Depot became the lessee of a building in was zoned as residential. Neighbors complained.
Danbury, where it operated a retail store. The The town’s planning and zoning commission found
property has been owned in fee simple since 2008. that operation as a nursery, along with associated
Before that, the building was owned by the Girola- commercial vehicle traffic, was permissible. Some-
mettis. In 2007, Girolametti entered into an agree- time later, the town revised its zoning regulations,
ment with Rizzo Corporation for construction declaring that farms in the residential zone where
services at the property. Rizzo filed various docu- the farm was located issued were a special excep-
ments with the city to obtain building permits and tion use. Soon afterward, a zoning enforcement
inspections. Plaintiffs claim that Rizzo’s filings officer advised plaintiffs they were in violation of
were inadequate and failed to meet the statutory several zoning regulations. A cease-and-desist order
requirements. Despite these alleged inadequacies, was issued. Plaintiffs neither applied nor appealed.
the city issued building permits. Plaintiffs filed a The town sought and obtained injunctive relief.
lawsuit alleging several counts including reckless Plaintiffs applied for a special exception permit; fol-
disregard and negligence. Defendants filed a mo- lowing a hearing, the application was denied. The
tion for summary judgment. The court granted court dismissed an appeal from the commission’s
the motion as to Count Three only. Count Three ruling. The court acknowledged that there was fac-
alleged a cause of action for “negligent injury to tual evidence to support plaintiffs’ claims. A zon-
identifiable persons.” Plaintiffs claimed that de- ing enforcement officer found the site was stable. A
fendants negligently failed to properly enforce the civil engineer found no indications of storm water
building code despite circumstances that made it flow onto adjoining properties, and a neighbor tes-
apparent that their failure to act would subject tified that plaintiffs had made efforts to prevent
people to imminent harm. Plaintiffs argued that storm water flow. However, the greater weight of
this claim is exempt from governmental immunity the evidence militated against their claims. Adverse
because they are identifiable victims; as the owners impacts of the farm use were established and ongo-
of the building who work there every day, they are ing and were visible to commission members and
plainly exposed to harm if there are any structur- nearby residents. The court noted evidence of odor
al failures or fires. The court relied on precedent and insect infestation associated with livestock,
when rejecting plaintiffs’ argument. It reasoned truck traffic, and the unsightly appearance of the
that plaintiffs could have experienced harm from agricultural building in close proximity to nearby
defendants’ alleged wrongdoing at any time in the residences. The court concluded that the commis-
future or not at all. Therefore, it never would have sion acted properly and in accordance with its dis-
been apparent to defendants that they had an im- cretion in denying plaintiffs’ application.

mediate duty to fix this unspecified harm. PERSONAL INJURY

LAND USE AND PLANNING Court Denied One Defendant’s Motion

Substantial Evidence Supported Town’s for Summary Judgment In Lawsuit
Denial of Permission to Operate Farm Arising from Injuries Sustained During
in Residential Zone a Bar Fight

CASE: Cashman v. Clinton Planning & Zoning Comm’n CASE: Short v. Szwedo
COURT: Middlesex J.D. at Middletown COURT: New Britain J.D.
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6023630 DOC. NO.: CV-18-5023620
COURT OPINION BY: Quinn COURT OPINION BY: Wiese
DATE: November 25, 2020 • PAGES: 12 DATE: December 01, 2020 • PAGES: 11

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune