Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010

Home

68 September 10, 2010 Volume 4 No. 17 Zoning Bulletin the 2005 zoning changes were "effected by improper and unethical con- duct" by the involved engineering firm. More specifically, they alleged that the engineer who appeared before the Board and Commission on behalf of L & L had a conflict of interest in that he was financially vest- ed in L & L. Therefore, Dohnna argued that the decisions of the Board and Commission violated public policy "because they were tainted by the representations made by the [engineer] at the public hearings." Count I of the complaint asked the court to issue orders -"rescind[ing]" the variances and approval of the zoning amendments and "enjoining town officials from issuing permits based on the ap- provals." It also asked the court to: enjoin L & L from "acting upon" the approvals; order L & L to "restore" the subject property; and or- der that the Commission and Board rescind their approvals. L & L asked the court to dismiss Count I of the complaint. It argued that these claims -were an attempt to raise issues for which the exclusive remedy was an administrative appeal and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. In other words, L & L argued that Dohnna could not bring these claims under a new complaint because it never appealed the dismissal of its Original Complaint. The court agreed and dismissed Count I. It concluded that Dohn- na should have raised those claims in a direct appeal of the Original Complaint. Dohnna appealed. They argued that they "exhausted their admin- istrative remedies by appealing from the decisions of the [B]oard and [Commission] and, thus, the court could hear the action seeking in- junctive relief." In the 'alternative, they argued that "even if they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, this case [fell] within an exception to the exhaustion doctrine because it would have been futile to further appeal from the court's decision." DECISION: Affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that Dohnna failed to ex- haust its administrative remedies. The court explained that, under the "exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine," a trial court does not have jurisdiction over an action that "seeks a remedy that could be pro- vided through an administrative proceeding" unless and until the admin- istrative proceedings have been exhausted. Here, Dohnna had not ap- pealed from the trial court's decision dismissing its Original Complaint. Thus, Dohnna failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Dohnna had argued that the futility exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies applied. The court explained that exception applied "when recourse to the administrative remedy is futile or in- adequate if the agency is without authority to grant the requested re- lief...." Dohnna had claimed this exception applied because "the re- 6 - © 2010 Thomson Reuters