(a) No assessment shall be made until after a public hearing before the water pollution control authority at which the owner of the property to be assessed shall have an opportunity to be heard concerning the proposed assessment. Notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be published at least ten days before the date thereof in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality, and a copy of such notice shall be mailed to the owner of any property to be affected thereby at such owner's address as shown in the last-completed grand list of the municipality or at any later address of which the water pollution control authority may have knowledge. A copy of the proposed assessment shall be on file in the office of the clerk of the municipality and available for inspection by the public for at least ten days before the date of such hearing. When the water pollution control authority has determined the amount of the assessment to be levied, it shall file a copy thereof in the office of the clerk of the municipality. Not later than five days after such filing, it shall cause a copy of such assessment to be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality, and it shall mail a copy of such assessment to the owner of any property to be affected thereby at such owner's address as shown in the last-completed grand list of the municipality or at any later address of which the water pollution control authority may have knowledge. Such publication and mailing shall state the date on which such assessment was filed and that any appeals from such assessment must be taken within twenty-one days after such filing. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person aggrieved by any assessment may appeal to the superior court for the judicial district wherein the property is located and shall bring any such appeal to a return day of said court not less than twelve nor more than thirty days after service thereof and such appeal shall be privileged in respect to its assignment for trial. Said court may appoint a state referee to appraise the benefits to such property and to make a report of his doings to the court. The judgment of said court, either confirming or altering such assessment, shall be final. No such appeal shall stay proceedings for the collection of the particular assessment upon which the appeal is predicated but the appellant shall be reimbursed for any overpayments made if, as a result of such appeal, his assessment is reduced.
(b) Any municipality may, by ordinance, authorize the board of assessment appeals established pursuant to section 9-199 to hear appeals of assessments made under this section. Any such appeal shall be taken not later than the date twenty-one days after the date on which the assessment was filed. The ordinance shall provide the process by which such appeal shall be filed, heard and decided. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of assessment appeals may appeal to the Superior Court not later than the date twenty-one days after the date of the decision of the board of assessment appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
(1949 Rev., S. 736; 1949, S. 317d; 1967, P.A. 894; 1971, P.A. 179, S. 1; P.A. 76-436, S. 285, 681; P.A. 78-154, S. 8; 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 82-80; 82-472, S. 15, 183; P.A. 83-513, S. 3; P.A. 14-183, S. 1.)
History: 1967 act made appeals privileged, substituted state referee for three disinterested persons and provided that appeals not stay assessment collection although overpayments resulting from decision to reduce assessment would be refunded–previously appeals had served to stay all proceedings for collection; 1971 act required action on return day of court at least 12 but not more than 30 days after service rather than “the next return day or the next but one” as previously; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-154 substituted water pollution control authority for sewer authority; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to “county”; P.A. 82-80 added the provisions relating to the mailing of copies of assessments; P.A. 82-472 deleted obsolete reference to county as venue for superior court; P.A. 83-513 provided that notice should be in a newspaper having a “general” circulation in the municipality; P.A. 14-183 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and amended same by adding exception re Subsec. (b) and added Subsec. (b) re appeals to board of assessment appeals.
Section is the exclusive remedy available to a person aggrieved by an assessment of benefits levied for construction of municipal sewerage systems. 168 C. 514. Cited. 176 C. 497. Case brought under section is trial de novo. 179 C. 342. Cited. 190 C. 158; 192 C. 638; 195 C. 682; 213 C. 112; 216 C. 436; 231 C. 344; 236 C. 701.
Cited. 17 CA 166; 18 CA 508; 26 CA 540.
Cited. 43 CS 91.
Notes of Decisions
Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 490 A.2d 509 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiffs had such a remedy available to them under General Statutes § 7-250, which provides that no assessment shall be made until after a public hearing before the water pollution control authority, at which the owner of the property to be assessed shall have an…”
Vecchio v. Sewer Auth., 408 A.2d 254 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 19× “Notice of the scheduled public hearing is to be given through publication “in a newspaper having a circulation in the muniei *501 pality,” and by mailing a copy of such notice to the property owner’s address “as shown in the last-completed grand list of the municipality.”
O'Rourke v. City of Stamford, 426 A.2d 311 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 13× “, 1 property owners previously *344 connected to the older existing sewerage system, appealed pursuant to General Statutes § 7-250 2 to the Court of Common Pleas.”
Cyr v. Town of Coventry, 582 A.2d 452 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 9× “After construction of the sewer was completed and a public hearing was held in accordance with General Statutes § 7-250, 8 the WPCA *440 levied an assessment of benefits against the plaintiffs pursuant to General Statutes § 7-249.”
Jade Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Crystal, 674 A.2d 834 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 8× “The court noted that General Statutes § 7-250 7 provided the *706 plaintiffs with a public hearing at which their opposition to the proposed assessment could be heard and with a right to appeal the assessment to the Superior Court within twenty-one days of the assessment being…”
Grp. Assisting Sewer Proposal-Ansonia v. City of Ansonia, 448 F. Supp. 45 (D. Conn. 1978).
· cites it 6× “In light of these considerations, the crucial issue is whether plaintiffs have in Conn.Gen.Stat. § 7-250 5 a “plain, speedy *47 and efficient remedy in the courts” of Connecticut.”
Vaill v. Sewer Comm'n, 362 A.2d 885 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 8× “The defendant pleaded in abatement on the grounds that (1) the court did not have jurisdiction of the action because the claims raised by the complaint can be properly brought to the Court of Common Pleas only by an appeal under General Statutes § 7-250, and (2) the twenty-one…”
Gaynor-Stafford Indus., Inc. v. Water Pollution Control Auth., 474 A.2d 752 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “, pursuant to General Statutes § 7-250, 1 appealed to the Superior Court from a benefit assessment levied on its property by the defendant, 2 the Stafford water pollution control authority (hereinafter WPCA).”
Shoreline Care Ltd. P'ship v. Town of North Branford, 650 A.2d 142 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 4× “1 Shoreline appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 7-250. 2 The trial court rendered judgment for Shoreline, concluding that Shoreline had proved that North Branford had conferred no sewer benefits on Shoreline and that the “benefit assessment” therefore…”
Town of Wallingford v. Glen Valley Assocs., Inc., 459 A.2d 525 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The proper method to appeal from an assessment of benefits is provided for in General Statutes § 7-250. If Glen Valley wished to contest the benefit to it, an appeal could have been filed in the superior court in the judicial district where its property is located.”
Town of Killingly v. Wells, 558 A.2d 1039 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 7-250 (appeal from a town’s assessment of sewer benefits).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.