Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

Page 8 -- November 10, 2003 g4 Fees -- Court remits fines and attorneys' fees ff homeowner doesn't appeal demolition Homeowner had defied city for years CONNECTICUT (08/19/03) -- Stephenson purchased a four unit condom/mum that did not conform to the city zonLng regulations. He was issued a building permit ro repair and remodel the building. However, instead of repairing the violations, Stephenson increased the footprint of the house and added a third story, The city issued two cease and desist orders. Stephenson ignored them. The city sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor. The court found Srephensoa had willfully violated the regulations~ misled the zoning erLforce- menr officer, and possibly altered public records. The court ordered Stephenson to demolish the house since he did not have the financial wherewithal to bring [t up to code, stating it would remit fines and attorneys' fees if he did not appeal the decision. Stephenson demolished the building and the court remitted the fines and attorneys' fees. The City appealed the remittance. DECISION: Affirmed. Stephenson did not have to pay fines or the city's attorneys' fees. The pr/mary purpose of zoning regulations is to protect the health and safety of the community. The purpose of the law i.n question was to provide a means of enforcing the zoning regulations and to prevent an illegal use of a building. For years, Stephenson had defied the orders of the zoning enforcement officer. The building remained unfinished and posed a serious 'danger to the health and safety of the community. StePhenson had the legal right and ability to delay resolution of the issue by appealing and obtaining a stay of execution, ff Stephenson had appealed, the building would not have been demolished in a timely fashion and would have remained a threat. Under_the circumstances, the lower court gave Stephenson an incentive to abstain from exercising his r/ght to appeal. The court told Stephenson that if he did not appeal or interfere with the building's demolition, the court woutd re- evaluate the issue of fines and attorneys' fees. As a result, a dangerous build- ing was demolished and the zoning regulations were enforced. Ultimately, the court's decision to remit the fines and attorneys' fees was consistent with~,rote~, oC~an~,,, the health and safeD~ of the surrounding comraunil77. Ckarion : Stamford v. Srephenson, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 22322 9 ~ (~.00o). see also: Planning & Zoning Commission v. Desrosier, 545 A. 2d 597 (]988). see also: Mom'oe v. Ren. z, 698 A. 2d 328 (1997).