Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

March 15,2007 I Volume 1 I No, 6 The court found in the city's favor, in part because Cook had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and Cook appealed.. Decision: Affirmed. On appeal, Cook claimed that: the trial court erred when it found that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies; he had the right to operate the park as a nonconforming use; and he had a vested right in the operation of the park that was infringed upon by the city's ordinance. However, the appeals court agreed that Cook was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a law suit, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed without consideration of his other arguments. Generally, courts expect administrative agencies to be the authority on matters re- lated to zoning. Therefore, decisions of those agencies are considered binding unless it is clear that the agency acted unlawfully or arbitrarily. Tn addition, a party had to ex- haust all administrative remedies before appeal decisions of a zoning agency to court. Here, Cook did not ask for review of the decision of the public works director nor did he apply for a variance - another possible form of relief. Although the law in Alabama was well settled on this point, the~e were some ex- ceptions. Exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required when there was a question as to the meaning or interpretation of a starote or if the question was purely legal in nature. NeitheI of those conditions existed here. Even if Cook had exhausted his remedies, the court found no violation in the city's refusal to issue the permits. The court agreed with the city's assessment that by 2004, the nonconforming use had ceased to exist when only one mobile home remained on the property. The decisioD of the lower court was affirmed. See also: Budget Inn of Daphne; Inc. v. City of Daphne, 789 So. 2d 154 (Ala. 2000). See also: City of Gadsden v. Entrekin, 387 So. 2d 829 (Ala. 1980). Appeal - Landowner argues city cannot change its mind about rezoning her land Final version of development plan exclndes property included initially in rezoning Citation: Dutko v. Milford Planning & Zoning, 2007 WL 196522 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007) CQ:NNECTICUT (Oi/i2/0?) - Dutko owned property in the city of Milford. In 2002, the city's planning and zoning board began to create a conservation and de- velopment plan. Initially, part of the plan called for the rezoning of Dutko's land from residential to commercial. Ultimately, the board adopted a plan creating a "'center design development dis- trict." The district did not include Dutko's property, although the original plan did. The board had revised the plan over the course of three public meetings. Under the final plan that was adopted in 2003, property near Dutko's was rezoned Qut hers was not. Dutko appealed to the board, asking it to rezone her property so that she could develop it for commercial purposes. The board refused. Subsequently, Dutko sued the board in court, contesting the revisions to the plan. Decision: Dismissed. 3 109