Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2016

Home

November 25, 2015 ( Volume 9 1 Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin thus a zoning officer was entitled to absolute immunity under the state's governmental immunity statute. The Background/Facts: In August 2011, the zoning enforcement of- ficer (the "ZEO") for the City of Milford (the "City") issued a certificate of zoning compliance to the neighbor of Timothy T. Folsom ("Folsom"). The certificate of zoning compliance allowed the neighbor to build a noncon- forming structure on a vacant lot abutting Folsom's property. Folsom ap- pealed to the City's zoning board of appeals (the "ZBA"). Folsom argued that a merger between the vacant lot and the neighbor's property prevented the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. The ZBA found that a merger had not occurred and upheld the issuance of the certificate of zon- ing compliance. Folsom again appealed. On appeal, the trial court sustained Folsom's appeal. The court found no substantial evidence supporting the ZBA's finding that a merger had not occurred. In the meantime, Folsom had filed a reimbursement action in superior court. Folsom sought from the City reimbursement for costs incurred from litigating the administrative appeal plus interest. Folsom argued, among other things, that: (1) the ZEO was personally liable for failing to enforce the regulations; (2) the ZBA, collectively, was liable for failing to disqualify itself due to a conflict of interest; and (3) the City had to indemnify Folsom in connection with actions of the ZEO and ZBA. The City, ZBA, and ZEO (collectively, the "Defendants") asked the court to strike Folsom's complaint. They argued that they were entitled to governmental immunity under Connecticut's governmental immunity statute—C.G.S.A. § 52-557n(c). Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557n (c) provides in relevant part: "Any person who serves as a member of any board, commission, committee or agency of"a municipality and who is not compensated for- such membership on a salary or prorated equivalent basis, shall not be personally liable for dam- age or injury . . . resulting from any act, error or omission made in the exercise of such person's policy or decision-making responsibilities on such board, commission, committee or agency if such person was acting in good faith, and within the scope of such person's official functions and duties, and was not acting in violation of any state, municipal or professional code of eth- ics regulating the conduct of such person . . .." The trial judge granted the Defendant's motion to strike. Among other things, the judge found that all of the claims against the Defendants were related to zoning actions that required discretion and, as such, entitled the Defendants to governmental immunity. Folsom again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the grant of the certificate of zoning compliance was a discretionary act, and thus the ZEO was entitled to absolute immunity under the governmental immunity statute. The court also held that the ZBA's alleged failure to identify a conflict of 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters