Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Z.B. November 25,2006 - Page 7 sidering the date of the appeal- August 2001 - more than two years had passed before Stawairski sued the borough. Where a cll:l.im was not brought within the timeframe established by a statute of limitations, the court did not have to consider the merit of the claim or whether a party could succeed at trial. Had Stawairski continued to pursue legal action against the borough after the zoning board denied his appeal, the statute of limitations would have been extended based on Pennsylvania case law that held that "injury continued until relief in state court was fmal, tolling the statute of limitations until that date." Because Stawairski did not, the statute of limitations expired in August 2003. His case had to be dismissed. see also: Bottom v. Marple Twp., 689 RSupp. 477 (1988). Appeal- Neighbor misses deadline to challenge action Tries to win judgment in court instead of challenging rezoning Citation: Sutton v. Dubuque City Council, Suprem.e Court of Iowa, Nos. 85/ 04-1067, 86/04-1196 (2006) IOWA (09/29/06) - The Dubuque city council passed an ordinance amending the existing zoning code by reclassifying certain property to a planned unit development (PUD). Sutton, a neighboring property owner, f1led an administrative challenge to the PUD. He claimed that the new zoning was created by a conflict of interest. However, all challenges to zoning amendments had to be filed within 30 days of the decision, and his claim was dismissed for being filed too late. Paced with this timing'problem, Sutton sued in court, seeking a declaratory judgment against the PUD. The court ruled in Sutton's favor. The city appealed, arguing that Sutton was required to use the administra- tive challenge process in this case and that the 30-day limit to the challenge applied. DECISION: Reversed. The administrative challenge process, called certiorari, was the proper and exclusive remedy for asserting Sutton's conflict of interest challenge to the PUD zoning. Important policy considerations leaned in favor of a short period of limita- tions in challenging rezoning based on some claim of illegality in the enactment of the ordinance. Importantly, there was no reason a litigant should be able to use a proce- dure of general application - by winning a declaratory judgment in court- as an alternative to a procedure specifically designed for challenging the actions of government bodies, thereby avoiding the time limit on certiorari actions. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 79