Oh my. This decision stating that towns bordering Candlewood Lake can't enforce zoning or building regulations will definitely irritate City Hall.
The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the five towns bordering Candlewood Lake lack the power to enforce zoning or building regulations in the narrow band of land that circles the lake.
[...]
The court's decision -- Thomas Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties LLC -- stems from a 2004 zoning dispute in New Milford.
That year, Gerard's Marina began building a 16-foot by 50-foot deck along the edge of the lake for its customers. It never applied for a building permit or a zoning variance to build the deck. The town issued a cease-and-desist order to stop construction, and Gerard's initially obeyed that order and applied for a zoning variance for the work. But when the town denied Gerard's request, the marina proceeded to finish the deck without town permits.
It did so because it had a construction permit from the owner of the thin ribbon of land that circles Candlewood Lake -- the hydroelectric utility which was then Northeast Generation Co. and is now First Light Power Resources Inc.
That ribbon of land is commonly referred to as the 440, because it extends from the edge of the lake to 440 feet above sea level. The utility owns and administers it under the aegis of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Candlewood, Lillinonah and Zoar are created by hydroelectric power plants, which FERC regulates under the Federal Power Act of 1935.
Gerard's attorney, Peter Hunt of Danbury, successfully argued in state Superior Court in 2006 and at the state Supreme Court in 2007 that in such cases federal law and power always trump local regulations. Therefore, Gerard's, having obtained permission from the utility, was not required to get local zoning or building approval.
In its decision, the Supreme Court did acknowledge that towns can enforce health and sanitation regulations in the 440 zone. Marsicano, of Candlewood Lake Authority, said people will also have to obey state wetlands regulations.
But the concluding paragraph of the decision says plainly that because of FERC's federal jurisdiction, First Light or people building on its land do not have to obtain local zoning and building permits "for the development of recreational resources."
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
