Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 17 See also: Layton v. Howard County Bd. of Appeals, 399 Md. 36, 922 A.2d 576 (2007). See also: Grasslands Plantation, Inc. v. Frizz -King Enterprises, LLC, 410 Md. 191, 978 A.2d 622 (2009). Exhaustion of Remedies — Adjoining Landowner Appeals Grant of Variances But Does Not Further Appeal Dismissal of That Action Landowner then brings another court action with related claims Citation: Caltabiano v. L and L .Real Estate Holdings II, LLC, 122 Conn. App. 751, 2010 WL 2853644 (2010) CONNECTICUT (07/27/10) —This case discussed the "exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine" (i.e., the rule that appeals of zon- ing matters have:to first complete the administrative process before be- ing brought to court). The case also discussed the allowed exceptions to that doctrine, including the "futility exception" and circumstances under which collateral actions are permitted. The Background/Facts: Cumberland Farms, Inc., owned property in the town. Dohnna, LLC, of which John Caltabiano was an owner, owned the abutting property. In 2004, L & L Real Estate Holdings II, LLC ( "L & L ") applied to the town's zoning board of appeals (the "Board ") for variances from zoning regulations, which would allow it to: demolish the existing structures on the property owned by Cumberland Farms; and construct two retail buildings and related signage. Finding L & L had "demonstrated adequate hardship as a result of the unique size and shape of [Cumberland Farms'] lot," the Board granted L & L's requested variances. Also, in April 2005, the town's zoning commission (the "Commis- sion") approved amendments to the town's zoning regulations, which allowed drive -up windows in certain areas of town. Dohnna, LLC, and John Caltabiano (hereinafter, collectively, "Dohnna ") appealed to the Superior Court these decisions of the Board and the Commission (the "Original Complaint "). The court dis- missed those appeals. Dohnna did not file a petition for certification to appeal the Origi- nal Complaint to the appellate court in either of those cases. Instead, Dohnna eventually commenced another action, "attack[ing]," in Count I of the new complaint, the decisions of the Board and the Commis- sion. Dohnna now claimed that the approvals of L & L's variances and m 2010 Thomson Reuters - 5 67