South Lyme Property Owners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 172
South Lyme, CT 06376-0172
August 4, 1999
RE: CLASS ACTION SUIT TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER
Dear Property Owner:
The Town of Old Lyme through its Zoning Enforcement Officer, is attempting to prevent year-round use of all homes on lots having less than 10,000 square feet and which were not used year-round prior to January 1, 1992. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has been randomly sending notices informing property owners that their property has been "determined to be a seasonal use dwelling only" and may only be occupied between April 1 and November 15 and cannot be "winterized" or "remodeled" to "accommodate other than seasonal use." The designation of seasonal use will be recorded in the Old Lyme Land Records and the Assessor’s street cards and records will contain a "seasonal use only" notation.
Many of us have received these notices and have attempted to obtain relief from the Zoning Board of appeals, to no avail. The ZBA has consistently supported the efforts of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to restrict the use of our properties. If the Town succeeds in its campaign, all of us will be forever limited in the use of our property, and its value will be severely reduced.
As taxpayers, who shoulder the lion’s share of the Town’s tax burden, the beach community makes very few demands upon municipal services. We only ask that the Town recognize our Constitutionally guaranteed right to own and enjoy our property like everyone else in Old Lyme as we pay the same tax rate as everyone else.
We have consulted with the New Britain law firm of Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik & Lynch which has expertise in land use law. We have been advised that the sections of the Zoning Ordinance are likely to be found to be legally flawed and unconstitutional and violate the Connecticut General Statutes and our federally protected rights. The Town’s attempt to make year-round use of a home an expansion of "nonconforming use" is not supported by legal precedent. The regulations allow the Zoning Enforcement Officer to treat two identical properties differently and are unlawful. Barring the use of our homes between November and April does not serve any legitimate zoning purpose.
Our attorneys advise that we should file a class action lawsuit to protect our property rights. We will seek a declaratory judgement from the Superior Court that the regulations are not legal. We will also seek an injunction preventing the Town’s officials from enforcing the regulations or designating our properties as seasonal and a that whether the Town’s action denies our rights under federal and state constitutions to due process and equal protection of the law. We will seek redress under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.1
We have formed an association of property owners know as the "South Lyme Property Owners Association, Inc." It is a Connecticut nonprofit, nonstock corporation. It will be a Plaintiff in the action representing the interests of all of its members. Some individual property owners will also be Plaintiffs. Some of us name never wish to make our properties year-round, but resent being told by the Town when we can use our properties. If left unchallenged, the Town may decide to enact further restrictions on the use of our properties.
To succeed, we must persuade the court that Sections 8.7.1, 8.9.3 and 21.2.5 of the Old Lyme Zoning Regulations fail to serve a legitimate zoning goal. We intend to show that the regulations do not protect property values, traffic or other legitimate zoning purposes, but were instead adopted in an effort to prevent the need to improve infrastructure, such as sewer and water systems, schools, etc. to serve year-round residents. We must hire experts in the field of real estate appraisal, public health code/sanitation, traffic and other necessary consultants to testify at trial. We will hire the law firm mentioned above to represent us. The anticipated cost of pursuing our action is estimated to be $55,000 to $72,000. A copy of the estimated budget is enclosed.
We believe that our chances of success in invalidating the zoning regulations are good and that the Town’s attempt to strip away our property rights will be declared illegal. We need your help and financial support to successfully challenge the Town’s ruling and financial resources. There are hundreds of us small property owners who, joined together, can make this happen. If we simply allow the Town to restrict our property rights, the Town will continue to restrict the use of what they consider seasonal dwellings.
We seek to raise $75,000. If only 200 property owners sign onto this lawsuit, it would cost each one of us $375. If we have more people, the cost would be even less.
The Directors of this corporation have met and elected the following officers:
Please do not hesitate to call any of us for more information about this lawsuit. Your membership in this Association is critical and may be made by sending a check for $375.00 payable to:
South Lyme Property Owners Association, Inc.
C/O Larry Lapila
P.O. Box 172
South Lyme, CT 06376-0172
Please join us for an informal meeting on Saturday, September 4, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. at Our Lady of Good Council Church on Route 156. We hope you can attend to hear more about our plans. The attorney will be there as well as the directors to answer your questions.
Best regards,
Directors of South Lyme Property Owners Association, Inc.
Gary Gnazzo |
David Manafort |
Joseph Russo |
Larry Lapila |
Henry Zadrowski |
Joseph Orzel |
Salvatore Russo |
Joani Byer |
Angelo Faenza |
Chuck Parsons |
Ed Schmidt |
Tom Neligon |
1
Title 42 of the United States Code § 1983, provides in relevant part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…"