Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

May 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin had discussed the letter with the planning and zoning director) to re- spond to the letter constituted a decision for purposes of appeal under Connecticut statutory law —General Statutes §§ 8-6(a) and 8-7. The ZBA unanimously voted to deny Reardon's application on the grounds that "the appeal of the issuance of the project permits was be- yond the time limit specified by [s]tate [s]tatute and the . . . [r]egula- tions" and that "the appeal from the decision in whatever form . . . regarding the . . . letter, and/or [the ZEO's] failure to respond to such letter . . . [was] not an appealable event within the jurisdiction of the [ZBA]." Reardon appealed. The superior court agreed with the ZBA that the ZEO had not made a decision that could be appealed to the ZBA. Reardon again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that the ZEO did not render a decision in response to Reardon's letter that could be appealed to the ZBA under §§ 8-6(a) and 8-7. The court explained that § 8-6(a)(1) provides the right to appeal to the ZBA "where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, require- ment or decision made by the [ZEO] . . . . " Section 8-7 governs the time period for filing an appeal to the ZBA. The court said that "the failure of a [ZEO] to bring a zoning enforce- ment action is not an order, requirement or decision appealable to the [ZBA]" because "enforcement of zoning regulations is, as a general matter, a discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, duty." Moreover, the court said that even when there is a written communication from a zon- ing official relating to the construction or application of zoning laws, the question of whether a "decision" has been rendered for purposes of appeal "turns on whether the communication has a legal effect or consequence." Examples of appealable decisions would be the grant- ing or denying of building permits and the issuance of certificates of zoning compliance, noted the court. Here, the court found that the claims in Reardon's letter (i.e., chal- lenging the accuracy of the information submitted by the Eckerts in obtaining their permits) could have been asserted in a timely appeal to the ZBA from the decisions issuing the permits. Reardon's legal interests were impaired, if at all, by the March 2010 decisions to issue the zoning and building permits to the Eckerts, said the court. Therefore, the court said that even if the ZEO had made a determination on Reardon's letter, the effect would have been the same because the ZEO's actions would have given rise to no further injury than that which already existed (because of the issuance of the permits). Accord- ingly, the court found that the ZEO did not render a "decision" in re- 10 ©2014 Thomson Reuters