Aaron v. Conservation Commission
178 Conn. 173, 422 A.2d 290, 13 ERC (BNA) 1524 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is not required to exhaust administrative remedies when challenging the fundamental jurisdiction of an administrative agency or the validity of its regulations; a declaratory judgment action is an appropriate vehicle for such a challenge.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a property owner and builder, owns an 11.6-acre parcel of land in the town of Redding.
- A portion of the plaintiff's land is designated as wetland and contains two watercourses.
- In 1974, the Redding conservation commission, the town's inland wetlands agency, adopted regulations prohibiting the installation of septic systems within 50 feet of a wetland or 150 feet of a watercourse.
- The plaintiff seeks to build a second residential dwelling on his property.
- The proposed septic system for this second dwelling would be located within the prohibited distances set by the commission's regulations.
- Believing the commission lacks the legal authority to regulate septic systems, the plaintiff refused to apply for an inland wetlands permit for the second dwelling.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action in the trial court against the Redding conservation commission.
- The plaintiff sought a judgment declaring certain commission regulations invalid and an injunction to stop the commission from interfering with his construction.
- The trial court declined to entertain the action, ruling that the plaintiff should seek redress by applying to the commission for a permit and, if denied, pursuing an administrative appeal.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the present court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party challenging the fundamental jurisdiction of an administrative agency and the validity of its regulations have to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by that agency before seeking a declaratory judgment from a court?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogdanski, J.
No. A party is not required to exhaust administrative remedies when the challenge is to the jurisdiction of the agency or the validity of its regulations. Declaratory judgment proceedings are appropriate for determining jurisdictional issues or questions concerning the validity of an administrative agency's regulations, whereas administrative appeals are proper for resolving questions about the correctness of an agency's decision in a specific case. The court identified two exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine: 1) when the claims are jurisdictional, and 2) when the administrative remedies are futile or inadequate. Here, the plaintiff's claims that the commission lacks jurisdiction over septic systems and that its regulations are invalid are jurisdictional in nature. Furthermore, forcing the plaintiff to apply for a permit might preclude him from later challenging the validity of the regulations, making the administrative remedy inadequate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. It affirms that litigants can directly challenge an agency's fundamental authority in court without first proceeding through the agency's own administrative process. This precedent is crucial for parties who believe an agency is acting ultra vires (beyond its legal power), as it provides a more direct path to judicial review and avoids forcing them to legitimize a process they contend is unlawful. The ruling protects a party's right to make a facial challenge to regulations without being estopped by having sought a benefit under those same regulations.
