CT Gen Stat § 8-7 (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 8 - Zoning, Planning, Housing and Economic and Community Development|Chapter 124 - Zoning|Section 8-7 - Appeals to board. Hearings. Effective date of exceptions or variances; filing requirements.

 The concurring vote of four members of the zoning board of appeals shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement or decision of the official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations or to decide in favor of the applicant any matter upon which it is required to pass under any bylaw, ordinance, rule or regulation or to vary the application of the zoning bylaw, ordinance, rule or regulation. An appeal may be taken to the zoning board of appeals by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of any municipality aggrieved and shall be taken within such time as is prescribed by a rule adopted by said board, or, if no such rule is adopted by the board, within thirty days, by filing with the zoning commission or the officer from whom the appeal has been taken and with said board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. Such appeal period shall commence for an aggrieved person at the earliest of the following: (1) Upon receipt of the order, requirement or decision from which such person may appeal, (2) upon the publication of a notice in accordance with subsection (f) of section 8-3, or (3) upon actual or constructive notice of such order, requirement or decision. The officer from whom the appeal has been taken shall forthwith transmit to said board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. An appeal shall not stay any such order, requirement or decision which prohibits further construction or expansion of a use in violation of such zoning regulations except to such extent that the board grants a stay thereof. An appeal from any other order, requirement or decision shall stay all proceedings in the action appealed from unless the zoning commission or the officer from whom the appeal has been taken certifies to the zoning board of appeals after the notice of appeal has been filed that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed, except by a restraining order which may be granted by a court of record on application, on notice to the zoning commission or the officer from whom the appeal has been taken and on due cause shown. The board shall hold a public hearing on such appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 8-7d. Such board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify any order, requirement or decision appealed from and shall make such order, requirement or decision as in its opinion should be made in the premises and shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal has been taken but only in accordance with the provisions of this section. Whenever a zoning board of appeals grants or denies any special exception or variance in the zoning regulations applicable to any property or sustains or reverses wholly or partly any order, requirement or decision appealed from, it shall state upon its records the reason for its decision and the zoning bylaw, ordinance or regulation which is varied in its application or to which an exception is granted and, when a variance is granted, describe specifically the exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship on which its decision is based. Notice of the decision of the board shall be published in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the municipality and addressed by certified mail to any person who appeals to the board, by its secretary or clerk, under his signature in any written, printed, typewritten or stamped form, within fifteen days after such decision has been rendered. In any case in which such notice is not published within such fifteen-day period, the person who requested or applied for such special exception or variance or took such appeal may provide for the publication of such notice within ten days thereafter. Such exception or variance shall become effective upon the filing of a copy thereof (A) in the office of the town, city or borough clerk, as the case may be, but, in the case of a district, in the offices of both the district clerk and the town clerk of the town in which such district is located, and (B) in the land records of the town in which the affected premises are located, in accordance with the provisions of section 8-3d.(1949 Rev., S. 843; 1951, 1953, S. 378d; 1959, P.A. 458; 577, S. 5; 614, S. 4; 1963, P.A. 55, S. 1; February, 1965, P.A. 622, S. 2; 1967, P.A. 884, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 862, S. 4; P.A. 75-86, S. 2; P.A. 77-450, S. 3; 77-509, S. 6; P.A. 84-122; P.A. 87-215, S. 4, 7; P.A. 89-356, S. 13; P.A. 03-144, S. 2; 03-177, S. 4.)History: 1959 acts changed “appellant” to “applicant” in first sentence, provided for filing of exception, variance or reversal in case of a district, added requirement of newspaper publication of notice of hearing and added requirement appeal be decided within 60 days; 1963 act added requirement board record reasons for denial of exception or variance and for sustaining of order or decision; 1965 act required notice of board's decision on appeal to be mailed to appellant and to be published in a newspaper, eliminated requirement for publishing notice of the filing of the variance, exception or reversal and deleted statement that appeals from decisions of board may be made in the manner set forth in Sec. 8-8 within 15 days of their effective date; 1967 act stated in more detail the notification of decision required to be given the appellant and changed deadline for notification from within 3 days of decision to within 10 days of decision; 1971 act required that appeal be heard within 65 days of notice rather than within “a reasonable time”, required that decision be rendered within 65, rather than 60, days of hearing and required publication of decision and notification of appellant within 15 rather than 10 days; P.A. 75-86 required recording of regulation varied or to which exception made and basis for reaching decision; P.A. 77-450 deleted provision requiring that decision be reached within 65 days of hearing and replaced 65-day limit between notice and hearing with reference to time period under Sec. 8-7d; P.A. 77-509 added provision concerning stay of order on appeal where prohibition of construction, expansion, etc. involved and provided that decisions become effective not at time fixed by board but by filing in clerk's office and in land records; P.A. 84-122 required that appeals be taken within 30 days if no set period for taking appeals is adopted by the board; P.A. 87-215 authorized board to provide by regulation for additional notice by mail to adjacent landowners; P.A. 89-356 added provision authorizing the person who requested or applied for a special exception or variance or took an appeal to provide for the publication of the notice of the decision of the board when such notice is not published in a timely manner; P.A. 03-144 added provisions re time for commencement of appeal; P.A. 03-177 replaced provisions re notice of time and place for public hearing and optional notice by mail to adjacent landowners with provision requiring that the public hearing be held in accordance with Sec. 8-7d, effective October 1, 2003, and applicable to applications filed on or after that date.Cited. 140 C. 527; 142 C. 88; Id., 92; 148 C. 33; Id., 603. Since there was no applicable limitation of time for taking appeal, and since there was failure to show prejudice by any delay in taking appeal and thus doctrine of laches could not be invoked, it could not be said that appeal was barred by lapse of time. 150 C. 113. Cited. Id., 413. Provisions requiring hearing to be held by zoning board of appeals on “any appeal” are not limited to appeals in technical sense; they apply to every application invoking powers conferred on board by Sec. 8-6; recitation that applicant sought permission to change nonconforming use of his premises as a mink ranch to a “lesser” nonconforming use was insufficient notice to inform those who might be affected by change. Id., 532. Prior to 1965 amendment: Time for taking appeal from zoning board controlled by this section rather than Sec. 8-8. 151 C. 646. Cited. Id., 694; 153 C. 315; Id., 623; 154 C. 32; 155 C. 178. Although condition requiring petitioner to deed part of property for street widening was illegal and of no effect, remainder of board's decision granting exception for construction of gasoline station was separable and therefore valid. Id., 350. Provisions not applicable to any municipality which has not adopted general enabling act as provided in Sec. 8-1; hence notice of hearing in conformance with Hartford zoning ordinance was proper notice of hearings before zoning board of appeals of city of Hartford. Id., 360. Section not applicable to hearing before municipal zoning board of appeal prior to adoption of chapter by municipality. Id., 422. Provision that board “shall decide” appeals within 60 days after hearing relates to procedure and is directory, not mandatory. Id., 550. Zoning regulations required board to find “that the existing public streets” are adequate to handle additional traffic where an exception is granted and board could not grant exception conditional on determination of adequacy by town traffic commission. 157 C. 420. Board of appeals in hearing plaintiff's appeal from action of zoning commission was administrative body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity; plaintiff was given a fair hearing, witnesses not required to testify so that she might cross-examine them. 158 C. 158. Notice of hearing sufficient if it sufficiently apprises those interested of action proposed to enable them to prepare for hearing. Id., 202. Compliance with publication requirement by the board is presumed. Id., 331. Cited. Id., 336; 162 C. 74; 163 C. 379; 165 C. 185. Court, upon concluding that action taken by administrative agency was illegal, arbitrary or in abuse of its discretion, should go no further than to sustain appeal; direction of what action should be taken would be usurpation of administrative function. Id., 749. Cited. 173 C. 420; 174 C. 351; Id., 488; 195 C. 276; 211 C. 78; 212 C. 628; 213 C. 604; 218 C. 65; 219 C. 352. Without subject matter jurisdiction, board's action was a nullity; judgment of Appellate Court in 25 CA 611 reversed. 223 C. 171. Cited. 225 C. 432; Id., 575; 226 C. 80; Id., 913. Judgment of Appellate Court in 30 CA 395 reversed. 230 C. 452. Exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine not applicable to plaintiffs; judgment of Appellate Court in 42 CA 272 reversed. 241 C. 180. Appeal may be taken to a zoning board of appeals by any aggrieved party during a period established by a rule of that board or, if no such rule is established, within 30 days of notice of the action from which appeal is sought. 261 C. 263. When a landowner receives written notice from a zoning compliance officer that the landowner's existing use of his property is in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or regulations, that interpretation constitutes a decision from which the landowner can appeal to the local zoning board of appeals; however, when such written notice concerns a proposed future use, such notice is not a decision from which the landowner can appeal. 306 C. 173. Municipal zoning enforcement officer's action or inaction with respect to homeowner's letter did not give rise to an independent “decision” that could be appealed to zoning board of appeals. 311 C. 356.Cited. 2 CA 384; Id., 506; 4 CA 205; Id., 633. Statutory and classical aggrievement discussed. 7 CA 632. Cited. Id., 684; 16 CA 604; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 628; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; 20 CA 561; 23 CA 232; 25 CA 611; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 171; 26 CA 187; 28 CA 256; judgment affirmed in part and modified in part, see 226 C. 80; 30 CA 395; judgment reversed, see 230 C. 452; Id., 797. Valid vote can occur only when agency members are present and convened together at a public meeting. 33 CA 281. Cited. 34 CA 552; 40 CA 692; 41 CA 89; 42 CA 272; judgment reversed, see 241 C. 180; 43 CA 512; Id., 563. Land use hardship standard is the proper standard of review applicable to an application to modify a variance by removing attached conditions, and four votes are required to approve such application. 54 CA 135. The threshold issue is whether an order, requirement or decision by zoning enforcement officer was made, thus triggering the statutory framework for appeal. 58 CA 74. Zoning board required to hold a hearing on plaintiff's zoning application. 69 CA 230. The determination of whether a letter issued by a zoning enforcement officer amounts to a decision appealable under statute depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and in this case, the letter was a preliminary advisory opinion and not a decision subject to appeal. 114 CA 13. Where four board members were present and available to vote on plaintiff's application, that one member abstained, resulting in denial of the application, did not render vote invalid under section. 138 CA 481.Board of zoning appeals members who will make decision must be present at public hearing. 19 CS 307. Cited. 23 CS 7. Appeal stays all proceedings in action appealed from including criminal proceedings provided for in Sec. 8-12. Id., 125. Cited. 25 CS 276. History discussed. 26 CS 88. Plaintiffs' claim that logic dictates that legislature did not intend that there should be an inconsistent procedure relative to appeals from decisions of zoning boards of appeal and zoning boards and that therefore the running of the appeal period in the case of a zoning regulation should be contingent on the statutory publication is without merit. Id., 90. Cited. Id., 169. Rule that board cannot reverse a former decision unless there has been a change in condition did not apply where former decision was invalid because of improper notice. Id., 255. Circumstances under which board's decisions should be overruled discussed. Id., 256. Where zoning was controlled by special act with different requirements as to notice of hearing, special act prevails. Id., 262. Equitable relief outside the framework of appeal procedure set up by statute might be granted in the presence of allegations of fraudulent connivance or collusion on the part of local zoning board of appeals; plaintiffs have been granted equitable relief when the zoning authority lacked jurisdiction to take the action which plaintiff was challenging; equitable relief by way of an injunction will not be granted if the court finds that the legal remedy afforded by statute has not been exhausted. Id., 334, 335. Cited. 32 CS 223; Id., 625; 35 CS 246; 38 CS 492; 39 CS 426; Id., 523; 41 CS 398; 43 CS 373.