Page 26 - CLT062121

26 ■ JUNE 21, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT held that the zoning administrator did not have
the authority to determine that plaintiff’s ap-
plication was void because it was incomplete,
because nothing in the pertinent regulations
LAND USE AND PLANNING or the enabling statutes suggest that zoning
administrators have any authority to act on
Zoning Administrator Did Not Have an application for a special permit. The court
Authority to Take Conclusive Action on also determined that plaintiff could not have
Application for a Special Permit appealed to the board from the action of the
zoning administrator because it was not a legal
CASE: Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning decision for the purposes of the General Stat-
Comm’n of the City of Hartford utes Section 8-6, which governs these appeals.
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of
DOC. NO.: SC 20374 the Appellate Court.
COURT OPINION BY: McDonald
DATE: June 07, 2021 • PAGES: 15
Plaintiff applied for a special permit to build a APPELLATE COURT
fast-food restaurant on property that it owns
in the city of Hartford. Plaintiff then filed
four separate appeals challenging various text CIVIL PROCEDURE
amendments to the Hartford Zoning Regula-
tions and zoning map changes made by de- Court Found That Lower Court Violated
fendant. These changes, if adopted, would
preclude plaintiff from obtaining the special Plaintiffs’ Right to Due Process
permit. The trial court dismissed the appeals CASE: Jackson v. Pennymac Loan Serv., LLC
on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to ex- COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
haust its administrative remedies when it did DOC. NO.: AC 43042
not appeal to the city’s Zoning Board of Ap- COURT OPINION BY: Flynn
peals. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate DATE: June 08, 2021 • PAGES: 13
Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judg- Plaintiffs owned real property and paid off the
ment. Plaintiff appealed again and the court mortgage to defendant by wire transfer in 2016.
reversed. The issues before the court were Defendant was notified of the statutorily-man-
whether a zoning administrator has the author- dated 60-day period to issue a valid release of the
ity to take conclusive action on an application mortgage but defendant failed to timely do so.
for a special permit and whether an applicant Plaintiffs sued defendant and defendant moved
whose special permit is rejected as void must to dismiss. Defendant did not argue in its mo-
exhaust its administrative remedies by appeal- tion that the action should be dismissed for lack
ing to a zoning board of appeals. The court of subject matter jurisdiction; however, the trial
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune