Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />tentious. relationship between the neighbors-including a previous <br />lawsuit brought by Salisbury against Door for alleged setback viola~ <br />tions-led to the denial. Because he was unable to sell his property, he <br />argued that the denial amounted to a taking of his property without <br />just compensation. <br />A jury found in Door's favor, finding that the city and its mayor <br />had violated Door's substantive due process rights, and it awarded <br />him compensatory and punitive damages from both the city and Salis- <br />bury. The city and Salisbury (collectively, the city) asked the court to <br />vacate the awards and for a new trial on the matter, <br /> <br />Decision: Denied, <br /> <br />The appeals court's authority to grant a new trial existed "if the <br />verdict appear[edJ to [the judge] to be against the weight of the evi- <br />dence." However, such a request would be denied the court's original <br />verdict was one that could reasonably have been reached, The court <br />noted that the verdict should not be considered unreasonable "simply. <br />because different inferences and conclusions could have been drawn <br />or because other results are more reasonable." <br />The city argued, among other things, that Door had failed to show <br />that Salisbury was acting as a state agent in influencing the decision <br />against the certificate and any damage was caused as a result of the <br />deprivation. However, the court found that Door presented sufficient <br />evidence that Salisbury biased the board's decision through his official <br />capacity as mayor. <br />As mayor, Salisbury changed the way the city enforced its zoning <br />code and hired a new building official to enforce the code "the way <br />he saw fit," specifically with regard to property setbacks. Additional <br />evidence, including testimony from Salisbury himself demonstrated <br />that Door was denied the cer-illicate of occupancy because his prop- <br />erty did not conform to setback requirements, even though the city <br />had approved his building plans. Finally, Salisbury's building official <br />was the one who made the determination that Door's property was <br />non-conforming, even in the face of prior inspections that found it <br />conforming, <br />Because the appeals court did not find that the weight of the evi- <br />dence contradicted the verdict, the request for a new trial was denied. <br /> <br />See also: Gasperini v. Cente1" f01" Humanities, Inc., 518 V,S. 415, 116 <br />S, Ct, 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996). <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />94 <br />