Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the Town of Pownal's enforcement action against George Anderson for violating local zoning ordinances by residing in an enclosed cellar and maintaining junk vehicles on his property. Initially ruled in 1983 by the Superior Court, Anderson was ordered to cease these violations or face daily civil penalties. Despite further enforcement orders in 1984 and 1985, Anderson remained noncompliant. In 1986, the Town sought to impose civil penalties, citing an incorrect statute, leading to a denial by the Superior Court. Nevertheless, the court recognized the Town's right to penalties based on the original 1983 order, and the case was remanded to calculate penalties according to the incurred legal fees and costs, capped at $100 per day per violation. The court clarified that alternative enforcement procedures under 30 M.R.S.A. § 4966 were not applicable, nor were the provisions for attorney fees and costs under this statute relevant to this assessment. The judgment was vacated, and the case returned for further proceedings to determine the appropriate penalties promptly, underscoring the Town's entitlement to recover costs as stipulated by their ordinances.
Legal Issues Addressed
Civil Penalties for Noncompliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite Anderson's continued noncompliance, the Town is entitled to recover civil penalties as per the 1983 court order, which mandates penalties of $100 per day per violation for costs, including legal fees.
Reasoning: Given Anderson's admitted noncompliance, the Town was legally entitled to recover civil penalties as originally ordered.
Enforcement of Zoning Ordinancessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Town of Pownal successfully obtained a court order against Anderson due to his continued violation of zoning ordinances, specifically living in an enclosed cellar and keeping junked cars on his property.
Reasoning: The Superior Court ruled in September 1983 that Anderson was in violation and ordered him to cease these activities.
Inapplicability of Alternative Statutory Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Town's motion for civil penalties based on an incorrect statutory citation was denied; however, the penalties are to be assessed under the original court order rather than alternative enforcement procedures under 30 M.R.S.A. § 4966.
Reasoning: Determination of civil penalties will proceed without utilizing alternative enforcement procedures available under 30 M.R.S.A. § 4966.
Recovery of Legal Fees and Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court must calculate penalties based on the Town's incurred legal fees and costs since the lawsuit's inception, with a $100 per day maximum, but cannot apply fee rules from 30 M.R.S.A. § 4966 to this Superior Court action.
Reasoning: The Town’s assertion that fee and cost rules from § 4966 are applicable to the Superior Court's civil penalty assessment is rejected.