Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

February 10, 20081 Volume 2 I No.3 ,,~ i( } Connecticut's historic district statutes prohibit areas within an historic district from being used for industrial, commercial, busi- ness, home industry or occupational parking, until a certificate of appropriateness is submitted and approved by the historic commis- sion (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. S 7-147d). In reviewing appropriate- ness as to parking, the law requires historic commissions to con- sider: the size of the parking area; the visibility of parked cars; the closeness of the parking areas to adjacent buildings; and "other similar factors" (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. S 7-147f). To implement the driveway rebuilding plan, the school applied to the town's historic district commission (the "town") for a certifi- cate of appropriateness. The town denied the school's application for the certificate. The town's reasons for the denial included: loss of landscaping; increase in paved parking space; parking placement diminishing the main historic structure; and concerns by members of the public. The school appealed to the trial court. The school claimed that its parking plan was not subject to historic district jurisdiction be- cause it was not "occupational parking," within the meaning of the .( law. The school also argued that it was exempt from the historic district statutes hecause the law exempted the property of higher education institutions. The school further argued that its nonprofit status distinguished it from other categories of business and indus- try regulated by the statute. The school also argued that the town abused its discretion in denying the application. The town argued that it had jurisdiction over the school's park- ing under the plain meaning of the statute. The town further ar- gued that the higher education exemption from the statute showed that had the legislature wanted to relieve private elementary schools it would have done so and it had not. The trial court found for the town. The trial court concluded that the town had jurisdiction over the parking area because the term "occupational parking" included parking for private elemen- tary schools. The trial court also concluded that the town did not act "illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion" when it de- nied the school's application. The court found sufficient evidence . that the additional parking and driveway were not appropriate for the historic district. ( JThe school sought certification to appeal. The appellate court al- ..,-.. / lowed the appeal. The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself. 3 143