Opinion
No. 566540
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REARGUE
In this appeal of a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Montville, by memorandum of decision dated January 14, 2004, the case was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of C.G.S. § 8-8f by serving the chairman or clerk of the defendant Board.
By motion filed January 22, 2004, plaintiffs have moved to reargue.
For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion is denied.
In their motion, plaintiffs claim that in dismissing the action the court failed to consider the provisions of Public Act 03-278. This act amended certain provisions of C.G.S. § 52.57 which covers the service of process in civil actions against the classes of defendants described in the act. Subsection (5) of the act, which is at issue here, is as follows:
The act also amended Public Act 03-224.
(5) against a board, commission, department or agency of a town, city or borough, notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, upon [(A)] the clerk of the town, city or borough, provided two copies of such process shall be served upon the clerk and the clerk shall retain one copy and forward the second copy to the board, commission, department or agency.
[This amendment became effective on passage July 9, 2003.]
"It is well-established that within the context of administrative appeals, defects in service of process denied the court subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal." Gadbois v. Planning Commission, 257 Conn. 604, 607 (2001). C.G.S. § 8-9 requires that appeals from zoning boards of appeal must be taken pursuant to § 8-8. Section 8-8f requires that service of process in such appeals is to be made upon the chairman or clerk of the board as well as the clerk of the municipality. The marshal's return in this case indicated that service in accordance with § 8-8f was not made.
Plaintiffs claim that service was properly made in accordance with C.G.S. § 52-57 as amended by Public Act 03-278. C.G.S § 52-57, however, has never governed the service of process of zoning appeals. Service of process of such appeals must be made in accordance with C.G.S. §§ 8-9 and 8-8f.
It is a maxim of statutory construction that statutes are interpreted "so that specific terms covering the given subject matter will prevail over general language of the same or another statute which might otherwise prove controlling." Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 331 (2003). In Christensen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 78 Conn. App. 378 (2003), plaintiff, wishing to appeal the trial court's decision in a matter involving the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Avon proceeded under C.G.S. § 51-197b which permits direct appeals. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal pointing out that C.G.S. § 8-9 controls appeals in zoning cases. Id. 385.
See also Abadir v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham, Docket No. CV03007046 (October 3, 2003, Foley, J.) and Shelmerdine v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford (September 3, 2003, Maloney, J.) ( 35 Conn. L. Rptr. 443).
Accordingly, the motion to reargue is denied.
Joseph J. Purtill, JTR