Procedure when regulations are violated.

Cited. 135 C. 423. Plea in abatement overruled where town named as plaintiff as no substantive rights affected; structural alterations on nonconforming use change building into substantially different structure adapted to an extension of the nonconforming use. 146 C. 178. Cited. 150 C. 439. When ordinance requires approval for extension of nonconforming use, extension without approval is prohibited. Id., 584. Judgment denying plaintiff injunctive relief based on unsound proposition of law set aside. 155 C. 431. Cited. 165 C. 185. Measure of damages for breach of contract and warranty deed in that house was constructed in violation of zoning regulations; ripening of use under Sec. 8-13a after breach does not affect damages. 170 C. 177. Cited. 180 C. 575; 181 C. 556; 186 C. 106; 199 C. 575; 208 C. 1; Id., 696; 221 C. 374; 225 C. 575; 230 C. 622; 232 C. 122; 239 C. 515. Although federal regulations allow a local zoning commission to consider compliance with local health regulations in evaluating recreational uses within a hydroelectric power project, federal regulations do not require that licensee obtain local zoning and building permits for development of recreational resources. 285 C. 498. Probable cause is necessary to justify search for zoning violations that target a single residence; administrative searches of residences must comply with fourth amendment of U.S. Constitution; injunction is an appropriate procedural vehicle through which a municipality may seek judicial authorization to conduct a zoning inspection. 303 C. 676. Held to be unnecessary for zoning enforcement officer to allege and prove irreparable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy in order for injunction to issue. 1 CA 176. Cited. Id., 285; 2 CA 515; 4 CA 252. Application of prior pending action rule to bar action under section is neither equitable nor just where prior action was brought under Sec. 8-6. 9 CA 534. Cited. 10 CA 41; Id., 190; 15 CA 550; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; Id., 344; 19 CA 208; 28 CA 379; 41 CA 89; 46 CA 5. Imposition of fine for violation of zoning ordinance when defendant also violated State Building Code not double jeopardy since zoning ordinance and code are distinct and fines characterized as remedial; there is a legitimate remedial purpose in imposing fines for zoning violations; such fines are civil fines, not criminal penalties. 65 CA 265. Does not require court to impose fines and to award attorney's fees, despite use of word “shall”. 78 CA 818. Because the enforcement of zoning regulations is an act performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public, it is a discretionary and not ministerial act and therefore not amenable to mandamus relief. 122 CA 465. Section does not contain any requirement to prove public nuisance as prerequisite to imposing daily fines. 187 CA 604. In criminal action for alleged violation of order of zoning board of appeals, accused must be charged with violation of provision of ordinance, not merely order of board. 6 CS 375. Board's power to institute legal proceedings held to include right to engage counsel. 12 CS 192. Cited. 15 CS 485. Where two permits for “all liquor package store” were issued by liquor control commission in violation of 1,500 foot requirement of local ordinance, injunction against one permittee on action brought by building inspector refused. 16 CS 349. Appeal under Sec. 8-7 stays all proceedings in action appealed from, including criminal proceedings provided for in this section; information which didn't specify crime or section of zoning ordinance held defective; court could not take judicial notice of ordinance or of order of building inspector which defendant was charged with violating. 23 CS 125. Allows for injunctive relief where fines provided by law would not deter violation. 29 CS 62. Cited. 34 CS 69; 39 CS 334. School dormitory has educational purpose and is itself a school, rather than an accessory use, within zoning ordinance. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 294.