## Facts

- A 133-acre parcel in a residential zone had been used since the 1940s for sand and gravel excavation, which became a lawful prior nonconforming use after zoning changes.
- Ronald Renz purchased the property in 1973; through 1987, excavation of naturally occurring sand and gravel continued in essentially the same manner.
- As deposits depleted and market demand shifted, Renz installed a rock crusher in 1988 to produce crushed stone.
- The rock-crushing operation involved mechanized crushers, conveyors and screens, continuous loader feeding, constant drilling, and approximately monthly blasting to supply rock.
- The town issued zoning enforcement action and a cease-and-desist order, asserting that blasting and rock crushing exceeded any protected nonconforming use.
- In prior litigation between the same parties, courts had determined that blasting and rock crushing were not a permissible expansion of the nonconforming use.
- In the present action, the trial court permanently enjoined rock crushing and blasting, declined fines and certain additional remedies, ordered a restoration bond, and later set aside an initial award of attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating whether blasting and rock crushing were a permissible expansion of the nonconforming use.
2. Whether rock crushing and blasting constituted an unlawful expansion, rather than permissible intensification, of the prior nonconforming sand-and-gravel use.
3. Whether the permanent injunction against rock crushing and blasting was proper.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining (a) daily statutory fines, (b) removal of equipment and shutdown of all operations, and (c) additional disclosures needed to set the restoration bond.

## Decision

- Affirmed application of collateral estoppel barring relitigation of whether rock crushing and blasting were a permissible expansion of the nonconforming use.
- Affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting rock crushing and blasting.
- Affirmed the trial court’s discretionary decisions to (a) treat the zoning violation as not willful, (b) decline daily fines under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-12, (c) decline to order removal of the crusher, and (d) decline to enjoin all operations pending removal.
- Reversed the refusal to compel defendants to provide information necessary to calculate the restoration bond; remanded for appropriate orders on that limited issue.

## Legal Principles

- Collateral estoppel applies when an identical issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined by a valid, final judgment between the same parties; denial of further appellate review does not defeat finality for issue-preclusion purposes.
- A nonconforming use may continue, but a qualitative change in operations—such as adding intensive rock crushing and blasting to produce a different product—may be an unlawful expansion rather than a permissible continuation or intensification.
- Zoning injunctions and ancillary remedies are equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion; additional injunctive relief such as equipment removal may be denied absent a showing supporting that remedy, including irreparable harm.
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-12 authorizes, but does not require, imposition of daily fines; a finding that a violation is not willful supports denial of fines.
- When a court orders a restoration bond, it may require production of information needed to set an appropriate amount, particularly where relevant details are within the landowner’s control.

## Conclusion

The court enforced prior determinations that rock crushing and blasting were an unlawful expansion of a residential-zone nonconforming use, upheld a permanent injunction and the trial court’s discretionary denial of fines and additional injunctive relief, and remanded solely to require disclosures necessary to calculate an appropriate restoration bond.


Town of Monroe v. Renz, 46 Conn. App. 5 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)