2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development

Home

operation increased, but was turned down, and did not appeal. U.S Aluminum was cited for violation of the time limits, and appealed a cease and desist order. It sought a modification of variance from the condition, and challenged its validity. The court concluded: The time to challenge those conditions was at the time they were imposed because our cases are clear that a timely appeal is the exclusive method of challenging a zoning board's decision . . . Having failed to appeal when the Board originally attached conditions to its grant of the special exception, Appellants have waived their right to seek review of those conditions. . . . Similarly, that waiver further extends to Appellant's right to raise its constitutional challenge at this stage of the litigation. U. S. Aluminum Corporation of Pennsylvania v. Borough of Marietta, 123 Pa.Cmwlth. at 382-3, 553 A.2d at 1049-50. In Spectrum of Connecticut, Inc., v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Ellington, 13 Conn.App. 159, 535 A.2d 382 (1988), Spectrum operated an arcade under a Special Permit, with a condition requiring control of loitering. Spectrum did not challenge the validity of the condition. When Spectrum sought renewal of the permit, it was denied, and tried to appeal both the denial and the imposition of the condition. The Court held that Spectrum had waived its rights to contest the condition, stating: . . . a party may not challenge on appeal the validity of a preexisting condition to a permit which it seeks to renew. Having failed to challenge it when it was imposed, Spectrum was in no position to contest the validity of the condition when the commission evaluated Spectrum's renewal application . . . Spectrum of Connecticut, Inc., v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Ellington, 13 Conn.App. at 162, 535 A.2d at 384. Spectrum further argued that the condition was void, but the Court found that Spectrum had acquiesced in the validity of the condition: "Here, Spectrum accepted the condition imposed upon its special permit and acquiesced in the validity of that condition by its application for renewal. . . . if we held otherwise, and allowed an applicant to challenge the validity of a special permit condition which was not questioned until after the 9