Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 - September 25,2006 <br /> <br />Z.B. ( <br /> <br />- <br />Gharacter <?f the neighborhood. <br />Gawrych sued, claiming that the barn created a public nuisance. The court <br />ruled in Gawrych's favor.. <br />Rubin appealed, arguing that Gawrych had no grounds to sue for a public <br />nuisance. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affinned. <br />Gawrych could sue for a public nuisance. <br />A public nuisance was an unreasonable interference with a common right <br />enjoyed by the public. Under state law, a private citizen could sue for a public <br />nuisance ifhe or she could show that he or she suffered a type of harm different <br />from that of the general public. <br />Gawrych submitted an affidavit stating that Rubin's barn directly obstructed <br />his view of Lake Huron from his home. Gawrych also stated that his home had <br />diminished in value due to the barn's construction. <br />Rubin produced no evidence to contradict Gawrych's claims, which sup- <br />ported the lower court's finding that Rubin's construction ofa barn resulted in <br />harm to Gawrych that was different from the harm suffered by the general public. <br />Since Gawrych demonstrated that Rubin's construction of a barn caused <br />him special damages, and because a structure erected in violation of a zoning <br />ordinance was considered a nuisance, Gawrych's claims had merit. The appeals ( <br />court affinned the decision of the lower court, which required Rubin to abate <br />the nuisance by removing the barn from his property. <br /> <br />Appeal- Developer sues over denied building permits <br />Fails to continue local administrative appeals process <br />Citation: Mastej v. Bolduc, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, <br />No. 3:05-CV-645 (JCH) (2006) <br />CONN:ECTICUT (07/05/06) - Mastej entered into a contract to rehabilitate a <br />building and sell it for a profit. To this end, Mastej submitted building permit <br />applications to Bolduc, the city planner, both prior and subsequent to the <br />execution of the purchase contract. <br />Mastej alleged that the applications complied fully with all necessary re- <br />quirements and, therefore, Bolduc had a nondiscretionary duty to issue the <br />permits. However, Bolduc refused to do so. After the refusal, Mastej losthis <br />contract to purchase the property. <br />Instead of appealing the decision, Mastej sued Bolduc, claiming that Bolduc's <br />decision was a violation of his constitutional rights. <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of Bolduc. <br />Mastej had to exhaust hisadministrati ve remedies before he could sue <br />Bolduc for constitutional violations. <br />The loss of fmancing that Mastej described was simply an unfortunate <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />88 <br />