The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a deck attached to a residential property does not qualify as a "building" under state law. This decision affects homeowners and zoning boards across the state, clarifying the definition of a building in relation to zoning regulations. The ruling, made on April 23, 2013, could change how zoning enforcement actions are pursued in Connecticut.
The case, Tine v. Zoning Board of Appeals (SC18872), involved Dean V. Tine and Robin Tine, who constructed a deck on their lakefront property in Lebanon without obtaining the necessary permits. The zoning board of appeals issued a cease and desist order after discovering the violation. The Tines argued that the enforcement action was untimely, citing a three-year statute of limitations that they claimed applied to their situation. The court's ruling clarifies the legal standing of such structures and the limitations on enforcement actions.
Background
The plaintiffs, Dean and Robin Tine, purchased their lakefront property in 1999 and obtained a variance to build a single-family house that extended into a prohibited setback area. The variance was granted to protect the lake's water quality. After constructing the house, the Tines built a deck in 2004 without including it in their original construction plans or obtaining the necessary permits.
In 2008, when the Tines sought a certificate of zoning compliance for a potential sale, the zoning enforcement officer, Philip Chester, inspected the property and found the deck violated zoning regulations. The Tines then applied for a variance for the deck, which was denied, leading to Chester issuing a notice of violation. The Tines appealed this decision, claiming the enforcement action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the zoning board of appeals, determining that the deck is not classified as a "building" under General Statutes § 8-13a (a). The court stated, "We therefore conclude that the plain meaning of the term 'building' as it is used in § 8-13a (a) refers to an edifice designed to stand permanently, with a roof and walls." Since the deck lacked these characteristics, it did not meet the legal definition of a building.
The court also emphasized that the legislature's choice of language in zoning statutes is intentional. It noted that the statutes often differentiate between "buildings" and "structures," suggesting that the absence of the term "structure" in § 8-13a (a) was deliberate. The court concluded that allowing the deck to be classified as a building would lead to absurd results, undermining zoning regulations.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners and zoning boards in Connecticut. By clarifying that a deck is not a building, the court has set a precedent that may limit the ability of municipalities to enforce zoning regulations against similar structures that lack walls and a roof. Homeowners may feel encouraged to construct decks and similar structures without fear of immediate enforcement actions, provided they do not violate other zoning laws.
The decision also highlights the importance of obtaining the proper permits before construction. Homeowners who fail to secure necessary approvals may find themselves in violation of zoning regulations, but this ruling limits the timeframe in which enforcement actions can be taken against them. As a result, zoning boards may need to reevaluate their enforcement strategies and consider the implications of this ruling on future cases.
What's Next
The ruling can potentially be appealed, but the Supreme Court's decision provides a clear interpretation of the law regarding the definition of a building. There are no related cases pending that directly address this issue at this time. However, the decision may encourage further discussions and potential legislative changes regarding zoning regulations and the classification of structures in Connecticut.