You wanted to know (1) if state law requires a minimum distance between schools and facilities where sex offenders may be found (i. e. shelters, treatment facilities, group homes, halfway houses, interim facilities), (2) if such a law could be applied retroactively if passed, and (3) if anyone is required to check the existence of such facilities before locating a new school.

MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS

There is no state law that requires a minimum distance between schools and facilities where sex offenders may be located. Generally, the law allows local zoning commissions to regulate “the density of population and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, and other purposes (CGS § 8-2(a)). The city in question, Hartford, does not have a zoning regulation that specifically addresses schools and the types of facilities in question.

The law does, however, authorize courts, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and probation officers to set release conditions that place restrictions on residence, jobs, hours outside of the home, and movement of individual offenders. Sex offenders are the most likely probationers or parolees to be so closely and intensely supervised. Therefore, it is possible that an individual sex offender would be prevented from living or working near schools and would be under strict supervision.

RETROACTIVELY APPLIED MINIMUM DISTANCE LAW

If the state were to pass a law imposing such minimum distance requirements, it is unclear whether it could be imposed retroactively. Such a law would result in these facilities, which may be owned or funded by the state, having to either close, relocate, or stop accepting sex offenders. Generally, there is a right for property owners to continue to use their property in a way that was previously permissible but is a “nonconforming use” under new zoning regulations.

In Petruzzi v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 176 Conn. 479, 484 (1979) (quoting 2 Yokely, Zoning Law & Practice § 16-3 at 219) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that “[t]he right to a nonconforming use is a property right and . . . any provision of a statute or ordinance which takes away that right in an unreasonable manner, or in a manner not grounded on the public welfare, is invalid. A lawfully established nonconforming use is a vested right and is entitled to constitutional protection. ” Accordingly, while local zoning commissions are given broad authority under current law, the statutes prohibit regulations that prevent the continuance of a nonconforming use, building, or structure existing at the time the regulation was adopted (CGS § 8-2(a)).

Cases subsequent to the Petruzzi decision do not expound on what is meant by “unreasonable manner” or “manner not grounded on the public welfare” as used in the decision. Such cases seem to merely reiterate the rule. See Helbig v. Zoning Commission, 185 Conn. 294, 306 (1981) (holding that “[n]evertheless, the rule concerning the continuance of a nonconforming use protects the “right” of a user to continue the same use of the property as it existed before the date of the adoption of the zoning regulations. ”) See also Lampasona v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 6 Conn. App. 237, 239 (1986) and O & G Industries, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 419, 430 (1995).

It is also possible that a zoning law that has the effect of prohibiting the housing of sex offenders would be seen merely as regulation of a property's use as a treatment center, shelter, or other facility, rather than as law creating a nonconforming use under zoning regulations. It can be argued that such a property could still be used for its original purpose (as a shelter or other facility) in accordance with zoning laws. In this situation, it appears as if retroactivity would not present a problem.

SITE SELECTION ISSUES

The State Department of Education does not review school construction projects to determine if the project site is near a facility where sex offenders may potentially be found. When state officials become involved, local officials have already selected the site. According to Dr. Al Hinds, chief of building operations for Hartford Public Schools, Hartford does make it a point to determine the existence of such facilities before siting a school and to be familiar with any possible hazards that may come into the picture after the fact. However, there are no official procedures requiring them to look for these facilities.

SC: ts