Neighbors of a Pastures Lane property this month sued the town, saying the municipality has failed to enforce its own Zoning Regulations with respect to a residence on the dead-end road.
Specifically, according to a complaint filed June 4 in state Superior Court, two abutting lots owned by a Delaware-based limited liability company—numbers 78 and 92 Pastures Lane—have fences that violate the town’s regulations.
For example, an eight-foot deer fence at number 78 is higher than allowed and also too close to the road, according to the complaint, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Colleen Shelden and David Schwartz by attorney Todd Lampert of New Canaan-based Lampert, Toohey & Rucci LLC.
“The fence does not blend with the natural landscape,” the complaint said. “The fence is not of open design. The fence is especially visible at a distance of 50 feet. The fence is within the side setback and the more attractive side is not facing the neighbor.”
The stockade fence on Pastures Lane. Contributed
There’s also a “solid six-foot-high stockade wood fence” along the road at number 92, close to the property line, the complaint said.
The town has “neglected, failed, or refused to enforce” its regulations “to the detriment of the neighbors and neighborhood where these violations remain outstanding,” it said.
“Because there is presently no adequate remedy at law other than an order compelling the enforcement of the pertinent Zoning Regulations that will address RKVN’s violation of the above-referenced zoning regulations, the relief requested here is appropriate in the instant action,” Lampert said in the complaint.
The stockade fence on Pastures Lane. Contributed
Multiple lawsuits have been filed since the fencing appeared last year on Pastures Lane, a cul-de-sac of seven homes and one undeveloped lot that runs south off of Silvermine Road between Canoe Hill and Valley Roads.
Under the New Canaan Zoning Regulations, any deer fence installed in a front yard “shall be installed in a wooded area and/or shall be screened from the street by landscaping” and “such fence shall be of open design such that it is not especially visible at a distance of fifty feet” (see page 156 here).
The driveway gate at 78 Pastures Lane on Nov. 24, 2024. Credit: Michael Dinan
Last summer, neighbors filed an appeal objecting to the fence though the complaint itself targeted a building permit that had been issued for an automated gate at the top of the driveway at number 78 (located on the cul-de-sac). The town upheld the appeal, leading to a response lawsuit from the property owner. The LLC’s attorney, Amy Zabetakis of Darien-based Rucci Law Group, noted in the complaint that even if there were separate (non-gate-related) violations, the town’s failure to enforce its Zoning Regulations is not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zabetakis also noted that the driveway gate itself complies with local regulations and that state law does not allow for a ZBA to require a zoning officer to enforce violations on a property (the fence) prior to issuing an unrelated permit (the gate). Those suits are both active.
In addition to citing the fences, the new complaint said that numbers 78 and 92 Pastures Lane had been subdivided in the past and that as a condition of that subdivision, “a driveway must be installed so that the entrance to lot 92 comes from the accessway abutting the property.”
“This condition has not yet been satisfied,” the complaint said.
The town is being represented by Berchem Moses PC, the town attorney’s firm.
A status conference in the case is scheduled for July 14, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch records.
[Comments are disabled on this article.]