You asked for an analysis of PA 03-144 and a discussion of the rationale for the legislation.

SUMMARY

PA 03-144 establishes a procedure by which a person seeking a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other decision from a local building official may provide the legally required notice to the public that the building complies with zoning laws. By providing such notice, the person limits the time period during which the zoning decision may be appealed. Prior law did not specify when the appeal period began.

The legislation arose out of a state Supreme Court case that held that the period for appealing a zoning enforcement officer's decision runs from when the aggrieved party received the notice of the officer’s decision, not the date he made the decision. As a result, in the absence of the legislation, an aggrieved party who did not receive notice of the decision could appeal the zoning enforcement officer’s at any time, even after the building permit was issued and the construction had begun. The decision could also impair the financing of projects because of the uncertainty it created.

PA 03-144

By law, building officials cannot issue building permits or certificates of occupancy for buildings or uses subject to zoning regulations unless the zoning enforcement officer certifies that the building or use either conforms to the regulations or is a valid nonconforming use. (By law, legal use of a property at a given time is not subject to subsequent changes in zoning regulations and is considered a valid nonconforming use. )

Under the act, the zoning enforcement officer must inform the person seeking the certification or a party seeking any other decision by the zoning enforcement officer that the person may provide notice of the certification. The notice may be made (1) by publication in a newspaper having substantial circulation in the municipality, stating that the certification has been granted, or (2) by any other means specified in local ordinances. It must (1) describe the building or use and its location, (2) identify the applicant, and (3) state that an aggrieved party can appeal the zoning decision to the zoning board of appeals as provided under existing law.

By law, a person or municipality aggrieved by a zoning decision can appeal to the zoning board of appeals. The appeals period runs for 30 days unless the board specifies another period. However, prior law did not specify when this period begins. The act specifies that it begins on the earliest of the following three dates: (1) when a person receives an appealable order, requirement, or decision; (2) when the legal notice described above is published; or (3) upon actual or constructive notice of the order, requirement, or decision.

RATIONALE FOR THE ACT

The legislation was introduced by the Planning and Development Committee. At the public hearing on the bill, Charles Andres, chair of the Planning and Zoning section of the state bar association noted that while there generally was a 30-day period in which the zoning enforcement officer’s decision could be appealed, the statutes did not specify when this period began. But, in Munroe v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Branford, 261 Conn. 263 (2002), the Supreme Court had held that the period for appealing a zoning enforcement officer's decision runs from the aggrieved party's notice of the official's decision, rather than from the date of the decision. The decision overruled, in part, an earlier decision in Loulis v.

Parrot, 241 Conn. 180 (1997). In zoning law, an aggrieved party can be an abutting property owner, as well as anyone specifically harmed by a zoning decision.

Andres stated that the decision could create a severe hardship for a homeowner who wants to work on his home. The homeowner could be in situation in which the zoning enforcement officer has ruled that the property complies with zoning law, the building official has issued the permit, and the homeowner has hired a contractor. But, the homeowner may run into difficulties in obtaining financing as a result of the decision. This is because the homeowner’s attorney cannot guarantee that the approvals are final, as is sometimes demanded by lenders. The attorney cannot guarantee finality because he does not know who all the aggrieved parties are, and whether they have received notice. This may preclude some lending possibilities because the lenders may not want to take the risk that one of the aggrieved parties may appeal the zoning enforcement officer’s decision. Even if the homeowner obtains financing and begins work, under the court’s decision, an aggrieved party could subsequently come in and state that he had just found about zoning enforcement officer’s ruling and decide to appeal.

Bill Ethier, representing the Connecticut Homebuilders’ Association also supported the bill. He stated that the Supreme court decision created an “impossible situation” for building permit holders and other entities receiving a certificate of zoning compliance.

The Planning and Development and Judiciary committees favorably reported the bill. There was no discussion on the bill in the House or Senate and the bill passed in both chambers on consent.

KM: ro