Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2014 I Volume 8 1 Issue 19 remedies related to a denial of such a permit or a certificate of zoning compliance, concluded the court. Having found that Holt had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the court next noted that, under Connecticut law, "a failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a defect that deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to act in the case." Holt had argued that she was not required to exhaust her administrative reme- dies before bringing her legal action in court. She had maintained that she was excused from the exhaustion requirement because exhaustion of administrative remedies would have been "inadequate or futile" for her in this case. The court disagreed. The court acknowledged that Connecticut courts recog- nize exceptions to the exhaustion requirement but "only infrequently and only for narrowly defined purposes," such as "where `recourse to the administrative rem- edy would be demonstrably futile or inadequate.' " The court explained that an administrative remedy would be inadequate when it could not provide the plaintiff with the relief sought or provide a mechanism for judicial review of the administrative decision. The court further explained that an administrative rem- edy would be futile when such action could not result in a favorable decision and invariably would result in further judicial proceedings. Here, Holt had argued that the administrative process could not have granted her the equitable relief she sought the estoppel of the Town's ability to change its position on whether her lot could permissibly be built upon. However, noted the court, Holt's ultimate objective was to obtain approval to build a house on the lot, and she had not alleged that the Town zoning authorities were without the power to grant her that relief. The court found no evidence that the administrative remedies available through the normal zoning process could not both "provide [Holt] with the relief that [she] [sought]" and permit `judicial review of the administrative decision." The court rejected Holt's contention that administrative remedies were inadequate because the type of remedy she sought, rather than the relief itself, would have been unavailable in an administrative proceeding. The court also determined that Holt failed to show that it would be futile to ap- ply to the administrative authorities for authorization to build on the lot in question. Holt had alleged that Town officials displayed an "appearance of partial- ity and impropriety" at a public zoning hearing. The court said Holt failed to show any actual bias, rather than mere potential bias. The court explained that a suspicion of "bias on the part of a zoning commission," based on members' alleg- edly hostile comments, does not render pursuit of administrative remedies futile. In summary, the court concluded that Holt had failed to establish that her pursuit of process through the municipal zoning system "could not result in a favorable decision and invariably would result in further judicial proceedings." See also: Simko v. Ervin, 234 Conn. 498, 661 A.2d 1018 (1995). See also: 0 & G Industries, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Beacon Falls, 232 Conn. 419, 655 A.2d 1121 (1995). See also: Fairchild Heights Residents Ass'n, Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc., 310 Conn. 797, 82 A.3d 602, 613 (2014). Case Note: Two years after filing the lawsuit in federal court, Holt sought a variance from the zoning ©2014 Thomson Reuters 11