Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 17 cord did not include all of the evidence that was necessary to overturn the decisions of the [ B]oard and [Commission]." Namely, they claimed that the Board and Commission were unaware of the engineer's con- flict of interest and that the court did not have evidence related to this conflict when it dismissed Dohnna's Original Complaint. The court re- jected Dohnna's argument, finding: they should have raised it in a di- rect appeal from the action of the Board; and that Dohnna had made no effort to submit such evidence to the court on that appeal. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that even when plaintiffs (i.e., those bringing the action) did not exhaust their administrative reme- dies, there were certain instances where they could institute collateral actions. Still, generally, collateral attacks could not be made on zoning decisions. They were only allowed where "a previously unchallenged condition was so far outside what could have been regarded as a valid exercise of zoning power that there could not have been any justified reliance on it, or in which the continued maintenance of a previous- ly unchallenged condition would violate some strong public policy." Here, however, the court found that Dohnna had made no argument that would "rise to the level of a public policy violation sufficient to support a collateral attack" —such as an argument that the Board or Commission exceeded its power, participated in misconduct, or had members with a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the court concluded that Dohnna could not maintain a collateral action. Having found Dohnna failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the circumstances did not warrant an exception to the doctrine of ex- haustion of administrative remedies, and Dohnna could not maintain a collateral attack —the court affirmed the dismissal of Count I. See also: George V. Town of Watertown, 85 Conn. App. 606, 858 A.2d 800 (2004). See also: Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244, 851 A.2d 1165, 189 Ed. Law Rep. 741, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1078 (2004). See also: Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of North Ha- ven, 224 Conn. 96, 616 A.2d 793 (1992). Case Note: L & L had also asked the trial court to dismiss Count II of the complaint, which involved an unrelated project. The trial court dismissed it, and the appellate court affirmed that dismiss- al, finding Dohnna "failed to bring an administrative appeal and ma[de] no argument that the administrative action [was] void." © 2010 Thomson Reuters 7 69