DocketNumber: No. CV 97 0161623
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4786
Judges: LEWIS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/1/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The named plaintiff, Theresa Kish, and seven other individuals allege in their complaint that they all own property contiguous to Millard Pond, which is located on Five Mile River in Norwalk about four and a half miles upstream from Long Island Sound. The pond was created around 1850 by the creation of a dam at its southern end. The dam is now owned and/or controlled by the defendants, Salo S. and Dorothy B. Cohn, and Charles C. and Susan J. Slama.
The plaintiffs brought their complaint in six counts. In the first count, they allege that they have a property interest in, and the right to use, the pond for recreational and aesthetic purposes; that the dam has been declared unsafe by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and CT Page 4787 that the defendants are threatening to remove or lower the dam, which in turn will either destroy or radically decrease the size of the pond, thereby causing them irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law. In the second and third counts, respectively, the plaintiffs claim that the removing or lowering of the dam constitutes an absolute or negligent nuisance. In the fourth count, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed removal or lowering of the dam would violate their rights as beneficiaries of a public trust in the waters of this state. The fifth count seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the rights of the plaintiffs in and to Millard Pond. In the sixth count, the plaintiffs claim that they are third party beneficiaries of deeds from a Joseph James Pettey to their predecessors in title and that the proposed removal or lowering of the dam constitutes a breach of their contract rights.
The DEP, pursuant to General Statutes §
The plaintiffs started this action in the fall of 1997 and the last brief in this case was filed in mid-December, 1997. At that time there was no indication that the defendants had filed actual construction drawings for a specific design for a solution to the problem of the dam, or that they or their engineers were advocating the removal or partial removal of the dam, rather than repairing it. The file, moreover, does not contain any information regarding the reaction of the DEP to any plans that possibly have been filed by the defendants. Thus, it is not know whether or not the DEP intends to hold a public hearing on the defendants' plans regarding the dam.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was discussed extensively in Johnson v. Department of Public Health,
The Johnson court also discusses two exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. One is where "recourse to the administrative remedy would be inadequate or demonstrably futile." The other exception arises when such an action "would not result in a favorable decision and invariably would result in further judicial proceedings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Department of Public Health, supra,
The Johnson decision also refers to other claims brought by the plaintiff that are described as an "independent civil action." The Appellate Court said that this was improper as the plaintiff was "attempting, under circumstances that are impermissible, to prevent the making of a proper record of agency action, including a decision of the issues, for proper judicial review." Johnson v. Department of Public Health, supra,
General Statutes §
Moreover, neither exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies referred to in Johnson v. Department ofPublic Health, supra,
Hence, the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before the DEP are granted.
So Ordered.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 1st day of April, 1998.
William B. Lewis, Judge