Lost Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston
140 Conn. App. 136
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Lost Trail purchased two adjacent parcels in Weston with intent to create four buildable lots under local zoning.
- A series of boundary line adjustments were recorded (maps 3438, 3440, 3441, 3443, 3444) before subdivision regulations were invoked.
- Town officials stamped the maps stating they were not subdivisions and could be recorded without planning and zoning commission approval.
- Lost Trail mortgaged the property believing it was effectively divided into four lots; Hawkins advised subdivision approval was needed to divvy into four lots.
- Lost Trail declined to seek subdivision approval, arguing a prior Goodridge interpretation exempted the division from subdivision review.
- Courts below dismissed several claims; on remand the commission determined no subdivision occurred; remaining claims were adjudicated as moot or not ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether regulatory takings claim is ripe without final agency decision | Lost Trail contends no final commission decision was needed; subdivision not within the commission’s purview. | Town asserts final agency decision is required to determine takings under Port Clinton and related cases. | Ripeness requires final agency decision; claim dismissed |
| Whether declaratory relief was properly exhausted and ripe | Declaratory relief sought a determination that no subdivision occurred and that permits must be issued. | Exhaustion required; administrative remedies must be pursued via the commission. | Exhaustion required; claim moot or non-justiciable |
| Whether municipal estoppel claim is ripe and justiciable | Town’s prior stamps and Hawkins’ statements estopped the town from denying subdivision; damages possible. | No final repudiation; estoppel requires actual repudiation and ripe injury. | Not ripe; no final repudiation shown; damages not recoverable |
| Whether futility excused pursuing administrative remedies | Pursuit of remedies would have been futile due to Hawkins’ position and prior stamping. | Futility cannot override exhaustion; commission could have clarified the issue. | Futility rejected; exhausted remedies would have clarified the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Port Clinton Associates v. Board of Selectmen, 217 Conn. 588 (Conn. 1991) (finality requirement for takings claim and ripeness)
- Luf v. Southbury, 188 Conn. 336 (Conn. 1982) (administrative process deference and political settlement)
- Cannata v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 215 Conn. 616 (Conn. 1990) (agency jurisdiction and need to engage administrative remedies)
- Goodridge v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 58 Conn. App. 760 (Conn. App. 2000) (distinguishing minor boundary revisions from subdivisions)
- Peninsula Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 450 (Conn. 1964) (declaratory judgments not to circumvent exhaustion)
- River Bend Associates v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 262 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2002) (exhaustion required even when agency jurisdiction is challenged)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Commission, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (futility exception to exhaustion in some contexts)
- Dooey v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 151 (Conn. 1963) (predecessor on exhaustion and subdivision authority)