Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

Page 2 -- June 10, 2003 190 Tenant Violations m Landlord held liable for tenant's unauthorized barroom business Did landlord have power to bring tenant into compliance ? MAINE (04/15/03) -- Jermess owned property in Boothbay, Maine,-in the Maritime Commercial District. She and her husband owned C&B Marina Inc., one of the businesses occupying the property. Another business was a restaurant the Jennesses operated until they sold it (and leased the space) to Weeks. Weeks intended t(~ operate Norma's Pub and Grub. As part of the lease, Jenness required Weeks to comply with all zoning ordinances, Weeks applied for a Class A lounge and malt liquor license, which the town approved. Both Jermess and the town approved Weeks' plan to add to the structure. She added a second service room that featured an alcohol-serving bar. She ran the Pub and Grub for about one year. When she applied for renewal of her Liquor license, the town investigated to learn ff Weeks complied with the,zorfing ordinance. The code enforcement officer decided Weeks was operating a barroom in violation of the ordinance. He hand-delivered a notice of violation to her. Jermess a/so received a notice of violation. It identified her property as the subject of the violation and described the nonpermitted use. It stated Jenness' continuance to allow the activities made her a willing party and equally re- sponsible. The officer ordered Jenness 1) to require Weeks to discontinue the barroom use, and 2) to either alter the barroom to its former condition or obtain the proper permits for a conditional or permitted use. The letter told Jenness how to appeal, but Jenness did not appeal. Weeks did appeal, arguing the correct interpretation required looking at the business as a whole instead of as separate parts. The board Upheld the viola- tion, and Weeks did not appeal. Jenness wrote a letter revealing the Jennesses assisted Weeks in her appeal and did not condone her violation of the zoning code. When Weeks and Jenness did not change the use of the barroom, the town filed a complaint. After trial, the court ultimately imposed £mes of $100 against Jermess and $200 against Weeks and. ordered attorneys fees. Jenness appealed. DECISION: Judgment affirmed. Jenness was liable for her tenant's failure to comply. The law drew a distinction between an owner in residence 'and a landlord. There was one penalty for an owner who violated an ordinance and another for owners whose tenants violated ordinances. Other jurisdictions also have allowed landlords to be held responsible for tenant's violations if the landlord had knowledge of the violation and had the power to obtain the tenant's compliance or to evict the tenant after he or she received knowledge of the violation.