Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Z.B. April 1996-- Page 3 each lot in a subdivision had to have water and sewer connections. However, the ordinance did not apply to Wayne Terrace because it existed before the annexation. In 1969, the city amended the ordinance to make subdivision owners .respon- sible for getting the required water and sewer connections. In. 1972, Strickland bought the rest of the original subdivision and added it to Wayne Terrace. Strickland did not get water and sewer connections for several lots in Wayne Terrace. In 1985, the city revoked his subdivision license, saying he violated the ordinance. However, the city continued to grant him building permits. Strickland and city officials disputed whether the 1969 ordinance applied to Wayne Terrace. In 1988 they reached a settlement: Strickland would deposit funds with the city to buy necessary plumbing materials to connect all lots without water and sewer; and the city would give back Strickland's subdivision privileges and install the water and sewer connections. Strickland did not deposit the money the settlement required and continued requesting building permits. For awhile, the city sent him estimates for each project and installed connections after · Strickland paid for them. The city then discontinued this practice and began denying Strickland's informal building permit requests. At some point, the city changed the topography of Strickland's property while installing water and sewer connections. The change in water drainage c~eated pools of stagnant water on the property. ' In April 1991, the city wrote Strickland a letter stating it had received com- plaints about the stagnant water, and that Strickland would b~ in violation of the city's standing water ordinance if he did not correct the problem. Strickland had not fixed the problem by August, so the city issued him a citation. Strickland was the first person to be cited for violating the Standing water ordinance. Strickland sued the city. He also sued the city manager, mayor, and the building inspector. He claimed the city violated his constitutional'due process and equal protection rights by denying his building permit requests and enforc- ing the standing water ordinance against him. According t'o Strickland, the city singled him out by enforcing the standing water ordinance against him. After a jury heard the evidence, the city and officials asked the court to find in their favor. The court refused and submitted the case to the jury, which awarded Strickland $110,000 in compensatory damages against the city and $2,000 in punitive damages 'against each city official. Strickland then asked the court to modify the judgment to permanently stop the city from prosecuting him for the standing water violation. The city and officials responded by again asking the court to grant them judgment. They argued the 1988 settlement precluded Strickland from claiming the 1969 ordi- nance did not apply to him; Strickland could not sue based on the city's denial of building permits because the city never made a final decision on those requests; and Strickland did not prove the city singled him out by enforcing the standing water ordinance against him.