This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
08/22/2017 12:00 AMIt has been a week years in the making. After numerous scuffles, debates, and accusations from all sides, the Town of Madison, the Madison Beach Hotel (MBH), and a group of residents ended up in court in early August to debate the legality of certain events held by the hotel in general and on the piece of town-owned property known as the Grassy Strip.
The parties ended up in court for seven days. The case is being tried before a judge, rather than a jury, and a verdict is not expected until after the new year.
Issues between the neighbors and the hotel have stretched on for years, with one group of neighbors—known as the Madison Beach Preservation Association (MBPA)—accusing the hotel of several violations and a failure to abide by the variances issued by the town in 2008. Some cited violations include exceeding the building occupancy for special events, exterior lighting beyond what was approved, truck deliveries outside of approved hours and days, prolonged idling by trucks and buses doing business with the hotel, the exterior storage of trash, and amplified music that is audible beyond 50 feet of the hotel property. The original lawsuit filed May 20, 2015 said the violations were disruptive to the neighborhood.
The suit was amended in April 2016 with claims that the hotel continues to expand commercial non-conforming uses in violation with the Madison town zoning regulations. In March 2017, the MBPA announced via a press release that the New Haven Superior Court had denied the motion for summary judgment (a dismissal before trial) and the case would then move to trial.
MBH and the Town of Madison are both defendants in the case, but while the town and hotel maintain that all regulations are being respected, the hotel had been reluctant to speak out publicly about the lawsuit.
That all changed on June 28 when the hotel formally kicked-off its sixth season of the Grassy Strip concerts. MBH General Manager John Mathers took the stage before the show to address the suit and its potential implications.
Mathers said the plaintiffs want to end the concerts as well as the Tuesday evening movie nights for children, even going so far as filing an injunction in superior court to try to halt this concert. Mathers said the hotel and the town have tried to work with the plaintiff to come to some form of resolution and the hotel has done its part to be hospitable by doing things like voluntarily stopping the music by 9 p.m.
While the plaintiffs had not wanted to respond to Mathers’ comments at the time, now that court has finished, some are speaking out. Residents and plaintiffs Emile Geisenheimer and Cecilia Pfister both said they thought court went well.
“I think we got all of the facts before the judge and I am highly confident that both the facts and the law support our position, so I feel confident we will come out of this victorious,” said Geisenheimer.
Geisenheimer said the cornerstone of the neighbors’ case is that the extension or expansion of non-conforming use is not allowed, something the plaintiffs claim the hotel has done with the concerts, movie nights, and weddings on the Grassy Strip. Non-conforming use refers to uses or buildings that existed before zoning regulations. Geisenheimer also said that whatever the hotel may claim, its motives are commercial.
“It is clearly commercial and it is clearly both an expansion and an extension, because they are expanding on to property that is not theirs,” he said. “It is an expansion because it wasn’t done before the zoning regulations were put in place. That is the core of the case and the evidence is compelling…They [the hotel] are certainly doing all of those things and whether they are profitable or not, they are certainly seeking profit in doing it.”
Geisenheimer also said that he is concerned that the town, pointing out a series of elected and unelected officials, has decided to side with the hotel in this matter rather than remain neutral.
“Another thing that is troubling to us is it is not just that the town is failing to enforce the regulations, they are fighting against the taxpayers and citizens of Madison and favoring this commercial interest,” he said.
Geisenheimer said he was also concerned by the perception of the neighbors who are the plaintiffs in this case. He said the MBPA has received support from residents across town.
“They have tried to portray us as a bunch of old people who don’t like music,” he said. “I have traveled all over the planet for music…It is not concerts that we oppose; it is where they are.”
First Selectman Tom Banisch declined to comment specifically on the case as it is now in the hands in the judge, but did offer a timeline as to when residents might hear a verdict.
Court wrapped up on Aug 15. Legal briefs are due by Friday, Sept. 22 and a reply brief is due by Friday, Oct. 13. The judge is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Thursday, Nov. 16, after which the judge will have 120 days to issue a verdict.
Representatives from the Madison Beach Hotel did not respond to requests for comment.