Section 12-63e - Valuation of property on which a polluted or environmentally hazardous condition exists(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, and except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, when determining the value of any property, except residential property, for purpose of the assessment for property taxes, the assessors of a municipality shall not reduce the value of any property due to any polluted or environmentally hazardous condition existing on such property if such condition was caused by the owner of such property or if a successor in title to such owner acquired such property after any notice of the existence of any such condition was filed on the land records in the town where the property is located. For purposes of this section, an owner shall be deemed to have caused the polluted or environmentally hazardous condition if the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the United States Environmental Protection Agency or a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that such owner caused such condition or a portion of it.(b) If any owner of such property or if any successor in title to such owner who acquired such property after any notice of the existence of any such condition was filed on the land records in the town where the property is located (1) enters into an agreement with the department to voluntarily remediate such property, (2) files such agreement on the land records of the town where such property is located, and (3) has developed an approved remedial action plan for the property, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply. In any such cases, the assessors of a municipality may reduce the value of any property due to any polluted or environmentally hazardous condition existing on such property. The assessors of a municipality may also raise the value of any property after remediation is completed to take into account the removal of such pollution or environmentally hazardous condition.Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63e
(P.A. 90-270, S. 36, 38; P.A. 07-233, S. 11; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)
Plaintiff could not prevail in its claim that trial court should have reduced value of subject property because of its contamination; although statute contains no reference to actual knowledge of contamination as a ground on which to deny reduction in property value, statute plainly indicates that constructive notice of existence of contamination is sufficient basis on which to deny reduction in property value, and because actual knowledge is superior to constructive notice and plaintiff had actual knowledge of contamination, court would not apply statute rigidly to permit lack of constructive notice from town land records to trump plaintiff's actual knowledge of contamination when it acquired subject property. 98 CA 556.