Nelson v. Greca, No. Pjr Cv 00-0597508-S (Aug. 18, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Nelson v. Greca, No. Pjr Cv 00-0597508-S (Aug. 18, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10129

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 18, 2000

DocketNo. PJR CV 00-0597508-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10129 (Nelson v. Greca, No. Pjr Cv 00-0597508-S (Aug. 18, 2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelson v. Greca, No. Pjr Cv 00-0597508-S (Aug. 18, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10129 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS Plaintiff as Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of East Granby brings this action against the defendant seeking temporary and permanent injunctions, civil penalties and attorney's fees.

Facts From at least November 1999 the defendant has owned a home and real CT Page 10130 property in East Granby located in a residential zone and known as #15 Old Hartford Avenue.

On November 11, 1999 a "sandwich" sign was erected on her property. This sign was located in a position that violated the town's zoning regulations, Sec. VII C5, for her zone. Defendant was told within two days that the placement of the sign was a violation of the regulations and she understood that.

On November 24, 1999 the sign was still up and plaintiff sent defendant an order to remove it. Thereafter until March 7, 2000 the sign was not up but flat on the ground. On March 8, 2000 the sign was again upright and in violation. On March 21, 2000 the sign was still up and plaintiff sent a letter to the town attorney in regard to the sign. The sign remained up until April 3, 2000. The court cannot make a finding of fact of any violation about a period after that time when the sign was removed from near the road and leaned against a gazebo some distance off the road.

On or about May 17, 2000 the parties entered into a "Stipulation" "that a permanent injunction may enter" prohibiting defendant from displaying any sign on her property "not permitted as of right under Section VII C5 of the East Granby Zoning Regulations". The defendant claims that in signing the stipulation she never intended that a judgment enter.

Law Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff need not prove hardship to obtain the temporary injunction. Conservation Commission ofSimsbury v. Price, 193 Conn. 414. The court is convinced that on a final trial for a permanent injunction plaintiff will prevail. In balancing the equities between the parties the plaintiff prevails.

Judgment for plaintiff.

NORRIS L. O'NEILL, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS Plaintiff as Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of East Granby brings this action against the defendant seeking temporary and permanent injunctions, civil penalties and attorney's fees.

Facts From at least November 1999 the defendant has owned a home and real CT Page 10130 property in East Granby located in a residential zone and known as #15 Old Hartford Avenue.

On November 11, 1999 a "sandwich" sign was erected on her property. This sign was located in a position that violated the town's zoning regulations, Sec. VII C5, for her zone. Defendant was told within two days that the placement of the sign was a violation of the regulations and she understood that.

On November 24, 1999 the sign was still up and plaintiff sent defendant an order to remove it. Thereafter until March 7, 2000 the sign was not up but flat on the ground. On March 8, 2000 the sign was again upright and in violation. On March 21, 2000 the sign was still up and plaintiff sent a letter to the town attorney in regard to the sign. The sign remained up until April 3, 2000. The court cannot make a finding of fact of any violation about a period after that time when the sign was removed from near the road and leaned against a gazebo some distance off the road.

On or about May 17, 2000 the parties entered into a "Stipulation" "that a permanent injunction may enter" prohibiting defendant from displaying any sign on her property "not permitted as of right under Section VII C5 of the East Granby Zoning Regulations". The defendant claims that in signing the stipulation she never intended that a judgment enter.

Law Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff need not prove hardship to obtain the temporary injunction. Conservation Commission ofSimsbury v. Price, 193 Conn. 414. The court is convinced that on a final trial for a permanent injunction plaintiff will prevail. In balancing the equities between the parties the plaintiff prevails.

Judgment for plaintiff.

NORRIS L. O'NEILL, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-greca-no-pjr-cv-00-0597508-s-aug-18-2000-connsuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack