197 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Meriden enacted an anti-blight ordinance (Ch. 159) defining "blight" by enumerated conditions (including garbage/trash/debris) and authorizing citation enforcement.
- City sent petitioner Petrucelli a March 2015 notice identifying multiple alleged violations (parts B, F, G, H, I, N, Q); the city granted multiple extensions and met with him on site.
- A citation was issued (July 30, 2015); after further noncompliance, a citation hearing officer assessed a $500 fine (with daily enhancement) on October 26, 2015.
- Petrucelli filed a petition to reopen the assessment under §7-152c; a de novo two-day Superior Court hearing was held in March–April 2016.
- At the de novo hearing petitioner sought to call two witnesses (a deputy fire marshal and a housing inspector) to impeach the city inspector’s account of an agreement allowing entry; the trial court excluded at least part of that proffered testimony.
- The trial court found sufficient evidence of garbage/trash/debris on the property, rejected vagueness and due-process claims, and affirmed the citation; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary exclusions of Yacovino and Kilroy | Excluded witnesses would impeach Miller’s credibility about permission to enter property | Testimony was irrelevant or called out of order; other witnesses addressed the issue | No abuse for Yacovino (called out of order); even if Kilroy exclusion erred, error harmless/cumulative |
| Due process (notice & opportunity) | City failed to give adequate notice and process before assessment | City provided detailed written notice, hearings on request, extensions, and on-site meetings | No due-process violation; procedures and meaningful opportunity to be heard were provided |
| Vagueness of ordinance as applied | Ordinance vague; different officials/homeowners could disagree what is "blight," leading to arbitrary enforcement | Ordinance gives fair notice (terms defined) and petitioner failed to show arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement | Ordinance not unconstitutionally vague as applied; petitioner did not prove arbitrary enforcement |
| Sufficiency of evidence of blight (garbage/trash/debris) | Petitioner testified he cleaned property into compliance | City introduced photographs and inspector Miller’s testimony showing garbage/debris | Evidence sufficient; trial court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. RBS Securities, Inc., 151 Conn. App. 451 (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 321 (harmful error standard for excluded evidence)
- McFarline v. Mickens, 177 Conn. App. 83 (de novo review for due process questions)
- Ogden v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. App. 656 (vagueness analysis and standards for municipal regulations)
- Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. Carothers, 218 Conn. 580 (burden to show arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement)
- Seale v. Geo-Quest, Inc., 189 Conn. App. 587 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and trial court credibility findings)