Argued
March 12, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford
and transferred to the Land Use Litigation Docket, Berger, J.,
Page 777
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 778
David
F. Sherwood, Glastonbury, for the appellant (plaintiff
Farmington-Girard, LLC).
Daniel
J. Krisch, Hartford, with whom was Matthew J. Willis,
Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
Lavine,
Bright and Alexander, Js.
OPINION
LAVINE,
J.
Page 779
[190
Conn.App. 745] The plaintiff Farmington-Girard,
LLC,[1] appeals from the judgments of the
trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, dismissing
the plaintiffs four consolidated appeals that challenged
text amendments to the Hartford Zoning Regulations
(regulations) and zoning map changes made by the defendant,
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford
(commission), for failure to exhaust its administrative
remedies. In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the
trial court improperly concluded that it was required to
appeal to the citys Zoning Board of Appeals (board) and,
thus, failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and (2)
the defendant is estopped from applying the [190 Conn.App.
746] current regulations to the plaintiffs
property.[2] We affirm the judgments of the trial
court.
The
following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural
history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff owns
property at 510 Farmington Avenue in Hartford. On December
10, 2012, the plaintiff submitted a special permit
application, which the plaintiff describes as a "hastily
submitted" placeholder application "in order to
preserve its rights," proposing the construction of a
small fast food restaurant with a drive-through. On December
11, 2012, the defendant made changes to the city zoning map
causing the classification of the plaintiffs property to
change from a B-3 zone that allows drive-through operations
to a B-4 that does not. In response to the plaintiffs
application, Kim Holden, the citys chief staff planner, sent
a letter dated December 19, 2012, to the plaintiff, stating
in relevant part: "A site plan with minimal information
was attached to the application which is not sufficient to
review with respect to the zoning regulations.... The
application is considered incomplete and as such, the time
clock on the application has been
stopped."[3]
The
plaintiff appealed the defendants zoning map change to the
Superior Court, Peck, J., which invalidated the
commissions December 11, 2012 zoning map change because the
commission failed to comply with prehearing and posthearing
statutory notice requirements.[4] Farmington-Girard,
LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, Superior Court, judicial
district of Hartford, Docket No. CV- 13-6038698-S, 2014
WL 4815345 (August 19, 2014).
On
September 23, 2014, the defendant amended the text of the
regulations, resulting in the plaintiffs inability [190
Conn.App. 747] to use its property for a fast food restaurant
with a drive-through. The plaintiff appealed this amendment
to the Superior Court in a complaint dated February 18, 2015,
on the
Page 780
ground that the defendant failed to comply with procedural
notice requirements.
In
response to Holdens letter, stating that the plaintiffs
December 10, 2012 application was incomplete, Michelle
Carlson wrote a letter dated October 20, 2014, on behalf of
the plaintiff to Khara L. Dodds, the director of the citys
planning division. According to the plaintiff, it had waited
until after the court invalidated the 2012 zoning map change
to complete its application. Carlsons letter purportedly
supplied all of the required information outlined by Holden
and requested that the time clock on the application run and
that a public hearing for the application be set. In an
affidavit, Carlson attested that she verbally was informed by
the city that a new application was required and that the
supplemental materials would not be accepted. Dodds responded
to Carlson in a letter dated October 28, 2014, stating:
"We are contacting you with regard to a site plan review
application submitted December 10, 2012 and your desire to
re-activate this application with your current plan
submittal. After our initial review, it was clear that the
original site plan application, #2012-6263 filed in December
2012, lacked the required materials to be considered valid.
The application was submitted without site and architectural
elevation plans: as a result the application is void. A new
site plan application with the required materials must be
submitted. Please note several changes to the City of
Hartford Zoning Regulations have occurred since your last
submittal. Please review these changes to ensure that all
required materials are submitted with your new
application."
Dodds
October 28, 2014 letter coincided with the defendants
adoption of another zoning map change that blocked the
plaintiffs plan to build a drive-through [190 Conn.App. 748]
fast food restaurant. The plaintiff appealed the October 28,
2014 zoning map change to the Superior Court in a complaint
dated November 14, 2014, on the ground that the defendant
failed to comply with ...