Date: Fri 20-Mar-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-lawsuit-Bertram-Tannenbaum

Full Text:

P&Z Sued Over Land Division

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

A local woman is suing the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), claiming it

acted illegally in allowing a neighboring property owner to divide his 22-acre

property into two lots.

The suit was filed March 12 in Danbury Superior Court by attorney Joel Z.

Green, of Green and Gross, P.C., of Bridgeport, on behalf of plaintiff

Virginia Bertram of 4 Windy Woods Circle. The town has an April 7 answer date

in the case.

In a 3-to-2 vote February 19, P&Z members approved cutting Gary Tannenbaum's

22-acre parcel off Parmalee Hill Road into two lots.

Attorney William Denlinger, representing Tannenbaum, told P&Z members February

19 the 22-acre parcel's status has not changed in the past 42 years. When the

town adopted its land use regulations 40 years ago, land parcels which already

existed were protected by the "grandfather clause," meaning they would not be

subject to all provisions of the then-new zoning regulations. Mr Tannenbaum's

property falls into that category, the P&Z decided.

Mr Tannenbaum had applied to the town zoning enforcement officer to cut the

parcel into two pieces, but due to technical questions, the matter had been

referred to P&Z members for action.

P&Z members weighed the merits of two apparently contradictory sections of the

zoning regulations to interpret which section takes precedence in deciding on

the application. The property has R-2 residential zoning.

In the lawsuit, Ms Bertram states she owns residential property at 4 Windy

Woods Circle which is adjacent to and abuts Mr Tannenbaum's Parmalee Hill Road

property.

In granting the "first division" of Mr Tannenbaum's land, the P&Z's action was

unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in the abuse of the powers vested

in it because: there was no adequate reason for the action; the application

was legally insufficient; the notice of the meeting was inadequate, and the

regulation upon which the P&Z acted was outside its legal authority, according

to the lawsuit.

Ms Bertram is aggrieved as a result of the first division of Mr Tannenbaum's

property and will be materially damaged by it, according to the suit.

Through the suit, Ms Bertram seeks the following remedies: that her appeal be

sustained; that the court declare the P&Z's action unlawful, unenforceable,

null and void; that the court order the P&Z to reverse its decision; and that

the court order the P&Z to cover Ms Bertram's legal expenses.

Through the legal action, Ms Bertram is seeking to have the P&Z pay her an

unspecified amount consisting of $15,000 or more.