Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 18 Citation: Piquet v. Town of Chester, 306 Conn. 173, 2012 WL 3600314 (2012) CONNECTICUT (08/29/12)—This case addresses the following issue: when does a letter from a town's zoning enforcement officer con- stitute a "decision" from which.a landowner can appeal? In other words, the case addressed: "what constitutes an appealable decision of a zoning compliance officer?" The Background/Facts: Elise Piquet ("Piquet") owned property in Chester, Connecticut (the "Town"). After her husband died, she interred her husband's remains in the backyard of her property under the supervision of a licensed funeral director. Thereafter, the Town's zoning compliance officer (the "ZCO") issued a cease and desist order with regard to the burial for violation of the Town's zoning regulations. Piquet appealed from the cease and desist order, seeking a variance. A month later, on September 16, 2005, the ZCO infoiiiied Piquet by letter (the "September letter") that the burial was not permitted as a principal use or a special principal use in the residential district where Piquet's property was located. In the September letter, the ZCO also withdrew the cease and desist order for the purpose of allowing Piquet to remedy the violation. Piquet then informed the board of appeals (the "Board") that she was withdrawing her objection to the cease and desist order, without prejudice. Two years later, Piquet commenced an action in trial court against the Town and the Town's planning and zoning commission (hereinaf- ter, collectively, the "Town"). She asked the court to declare that she had the right to use her property for the internment of her husband's remains and, upon her death, for the internment of her remains as well. The trial court issued judgment in favor of the Town. Piquet appealed. The Appellate Court found that Piquet withdrew her variance application and did not otherwise appeal from the cease and desist order or the ZCO's September letter. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Piquet's action because Piquet had failed to exhaust her adminis- trative remedies by not appealing to the Board. Piquet again appealed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut certified Piquet's appeal, limited to the issue of whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Piquet's action because Piquet had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. On appeal, Piquet claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that she should have appealed to the Board prior to filing her legal action. Among other things, she argued that there was no decision of the ZCO from which she could appeal since the ZCO had withdrawn the cease and desist order. Both Connecticut General Statutes § 8-7 and § 140G.1 of the Town's zoning regulations provided that the Board © 2012 Thomson Reuters 3