Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

80 Page 8 - November 25, 2006 Z.B. Doing tbis defeated public policy favoring prompt resolutions of challenges to city decisions. Because the challenge process was the exclusive remedy available to Sutton, the decision of the lower court was reversed. see also: Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District v. City Council of Sioux City, 605 N. W2d 297 (2000). see also: Lewis Investments Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N. W2d 180 (2005). Appeal- Planning and zoning commission has discretion in approving special exceptions Bank claims decision does not have to be appealed to zoning board of appeals Citation: Jewett City Savings Bank v. Town of Franklin, Supreme Court of Connecticut, No. SC 17499 (2006) CONNECTICUT (10/10/06) - Jewett City Savings Bank fIled an application with the town of Frank!in's planning and zoning coriunission for a special ex- ception to develop a rear lot. After a public hearing, the commission denied the exception. Instead of appealing to the town's board of zoning appeals, the bank sued the town, arguing that the commission's discretion in deciding the exception meant the" denial was not an enforcement action. An enforcement action would require an appeal to the board. The court ruled in the ba..11k's favor. The town appealed, arguing that the commission's denial was an enforce- ment action because the decision was part of the commission's administrative function. DECISION: Reversed. The commission's denial had to be appealed directly to the board. Under the regulations, rear lot development was a permitted use as long as a special exception was obtained. To approve the exception, the commission had to evaluate certain factors, such as traffic and safety problems, property values, and environmental impact. It also had to conduct a public hearing and givenotice to other property owners. Importantly, the commission was asked to determine whether the special exception met regulation standards. Although this required some discretion, it was ultimately an exercise of the commission's administrative powers. There- fore, in applying the established standards contained in the regulations, the commission was simply enforcing its regulations. Ultimately, the mere fact that discretion was required in applying the stan- dards did not change the fact that the commission was enforcing its regula- tions, and parties in a zoning appeal had to exhaust their administrative rem- edies before appealing to court. Therefore, the decision was reversed. see also: Graffv. Zoning Board of Appeals, 894 A.2d 285 (2006). see also: Borden v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 755 A.2d 224 (2000). @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. .. ':\ ); >;; -,~)