SC Year In Review: Boundary Lines, Dog Bites And Variances
Take a look at Public Act 13-308 which restructures significant environmental hazard reporting requirements, and ask yourself, if it is such a hazard, why does it take effect two years from now?
The law also requires DEEP to hire a consultant to take a hard look at all risk assumptions in the regulations and the role of risk (health and ecological) in the state and propose recommendations as deemed necessary. There is a restructured brownfield program for DECD and revised environmental land use restrictions (some are calling it "ELUR light") with a new term "the activity and use limitation" — only problem — there are no implementing regulations so it cannot be used.
Highlights of the Year
Now, let us have a look at what the Connecticut Supreme Court offered up this past year that is inherently interesting and affects your practice involving land.
As Emily Litella Would Say: 'Never Mind.'
Vance v. Tassmer
307 Conn 635 (2013)
You hardly see these, but when you do, it is fun to imagine the Court's behind-the scenes discussion. This is a run-of-the-mine neighbor-against-neighbor boundary line dispute, with a dash of adverse possession, a shaky settlement that fell apart, an ill-considered variance application as part of the settlement, an alleged waiver of the right to enforce the settlement agreement, and ultimately the Court's grant of the petition for certification. It is a short, two-page, per curiam decision. Once you get half way through it you will say to yourself, "Why did the Court ever take this case?" And then when you get to the end of the decision you will read, "This case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted."
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
Murphy v. EAPWJP LLC