Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Town of Bloomfield v. Parizot

Decided: June 10, 1965.

TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTIAN PARIZOT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. JOHN DEVITO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Crane, J.c.c.

Crane

These are appeals from the Municipal Court of the Town of Bloomfield. The parties have stipulated the facts. Defendant Parizot is the owner of premises located in the Town of Bloomfield within an R-5 single family residential zone. In July 1962 he entered into a contract to have a swimming pool erected on his property for $2,099. The pool was erected in late summer of that year without an application for a building permit first having been made.

On February 14, 1963 the town building inspector directed Parizot to remove the pool because of various alleged zoning violations. After other communications and defendant's refusal to remove the pool, a summons and complaint were served on March 31, 1964 charging failure to secure a building permit and violation of the zoning ordinance.

The trial in the municipal court was adjourned until after an application for a variance could be heard by the board of adjustment. The variance application was filed on May 28, 1964. At the same time, an application was made for the

first time to the building inspector for a building permit. He refused to issue the permit on June 24, 1964. An appeal was taken to the board of adjustment, and after a partial hearing the appeal was withdrawn.

The facts with respect to defendant DeVito, except for minor differences as to dates and price, are substantially identical. His pool was erected by the same distributor and is essentially similar in construction and appearance.

Defendants were subsequently tried in municipal court on December 11, 1964 and found guilty. Each was fined $100 and charged $5 costs.

On this appeal it is also stipulated that the pools are above ground, requiring no excavation; they can be installed or removed by two men in half a day. By stipulation, photographs have been submitted showing the pools in question and their location on the premises. Other photographs of similar pools have been submitted to show the general nature of the construction. There has also been submitted a drawing of the structural details of the pools, together with plot plans generally showing the location on the premises.

The complaints charge in the first paragraph that defendants erected and constructed the pools before obtaining a building permit, as required by sections 1 and 3 of the local building code. The second paragraph of each complaint charges that defendants constructed the pools in violation of the zoning ordinance with respect to front yard requirements and in violation of the accessory use regulations.

It is argued by the town that a swimming pool is not an accessory use permitted by the zoning ordinance. Article VII, section A, of the ordinance permits a number of uses including:

"(e) Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to the permitted dwelling unit shall not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.