Laserfiche WebLink
July 10, 2011 Volume 5 No. 13 Zoning Bulletin <br />the violation within 15 days. Finally, on March 9, 2010, the Town <br />filed a complaint in court against the Taylors. The complaint al- <br />leged the storage of the mobile home on the Taylors lot violated the <br />Town's land use ordinance. <br />The Taylors contended that they had played no role in allowing <br />the mobile home to be moved onto and to remain on their lot. They <br />argued that they therefore could not be responsible for a violation <br />of ordinance. <br />The court rejected the Taylors' argument. The court found that <br />the Taylors, after having been put on notice of the land use viola- <br />tion, did not take any significant steps to obtain a permit or have <br />the mobile home removed from their land. The court assessed <br />against the Taylors a civil penalty of $2,500, plus attorney's fees, <br />expert witness' fees, and costs. <br />The Taylors appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that, even though it <br />was a third -party that placed the mobile home on the Taylors' lot <br />without first obtaining a permit, the Taylors were responsible for <br />the land use violation. <br />The court explained its holding. The violation applied to the Taylors <br />because "(1) the Ordinance authorize[d] fines against the landowner <br />for this violation; (2) [the Taylors] had notice of the violation; (3) [the <br />Taylors], as landowners had control over the use of their land; and (4) <br />[the Taylors] had a reasonable opportunity to correct the violation." <br />See also: Town of Boothbay v. Jenness, 2003 ME 50, 822 A.2d <br />1169 (Me. 2003). <br />Enforcement —Landowner builds on lot <br />declared unbuildable <br />Court orders demolition of structure, and landowner argues <br />that is an inappropriate remedy <br />Citation: Cornell v. Michaud, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 607, 947 N.E.2d <br />1138 (2011) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (05/31/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a court -ordered demolition of a structure was an "appro- <br />priate remedy" where a landowner built the structure despite notice <br />of a nonconformity and adverse judicial action. <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />