Preview
DOCKET NO, DBD-CV-13-5009145
SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
PASQUALE MURACA, : DANBURY
Plaintiff, :
VS.
TOWN OF BETHEL
Defendant. : January29, 2015
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties in this action are the plaintiff, Pasquale Muraca, and the defendant, Town of
Bethel. On February 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a small claims writ against defendant Town of
Bethel for the recovery of a demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 that the plaintiff paid to the
defendant Town of Bethel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Town of Bethel wrongly
accepted this fee for a demolition permit because pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 29-
402 (c), he was exempt from paying any permit fee to demolish his house. The defendant Town
of Bethel moved to transfer this action to the regular docket of the Superior Court and such
motion was granted on March 22, 2014. On July 5, 2013, the defendant Town of Bethel filed its
answer and special defense to the plainti€escompia inO'cduténding that both General Statutes § 29-
rr 7
AG
406 and and Chapter 43, § 43-6 of the-TownofBéethel T8%n Code require the payment of this
permit fee. ef 2 Wd G2 NUP Stee
Trial was conducted in this eet $ 0} + Yanaar ‘ 3 an G
i : dio nL 340 XN
CH ol . vo
e. mur aca, yo
e
o Lal he poeIl
THE EVIDENCE
The court finds the following facts. On April 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a permit
application for the demolition of a house and garage located at 32 Maple Avenue, Bethel,
Connecticut. (Trial Ex. D.) At the time the plaintiff filed his permit application, he paid a permit
demolition fee of $1,157.71 to defendant Town of Bethel. (Trial Ex. E.) A permit for demolition
was issued by the defendant Town of Bethel and the house and garage located at 32 Maple
Avenue, Bethel, Connecticut was demolished. (Trial Ex. E.) :
I
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff has moved for judgment with respect to his claim that the defendant Town of
Bethel wrongfully charged him $1,157.71 for a demolition permit fee and seeks recovery of such
fee. The plaintiff contends that General Statutes § 29-402 (c) exempts the payment of any fee for
demolition.
Section 29-402 titled, “License for demolition business: Application; fees; refusal or
revocation. Exemptions, provides, in relevant part, that “(b)[n Jo person shall engage in the
business of demolition of buildings without a license obtained from the Department of
Construction Services .” Section 29-402 (c) further provides in relevant part “The provisions of
this section shall not apply to . . . (4) the demolition of a single family residence or outbuilding by
an owner of such structure if it does not exceed’a height of thirty feet... .” Section 29-402
addresses the requirement of a license to demolish a structure and not a permit and/or fee for the
demolishing of such structure.General Statutes Section 29-406, titled “Permit for demolition of particular structure,
Exemption. Waiting period,” does provide in relevant part: “(a) No person shall demolish any
building, structure or part thereof without obtaining a permit for the particular demolition
undertaking from the building official of the town, city or borough wherein such building or part
thereof is located.”
Section 43-1 of the Town of Bethel Town Code provides that: “No person, firm,
corporation or other entity shall demolish any building, structure or part thereof without first
obtaining a permit from the Building Department. No such permit shall be issued until the
applicant: (a) complies with the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes, Section 29-406.”
(Trial Ex. C.) Section 43-6 of the Town of Bethel Town Code titled “Permit Fee,” provides that
“the applicant shall pay a fee of $35 or one percent of assessed value, whichever is greater, for
said demolition permit.” (Trial Ex. C.) The plaintiff was assessed a demolition permit fee of
$1,157.71 and paid such fee.
The plaintiffs contention that General Statutes § 29-402 exempts him from paying a
demolition permit fee is without merit. Section 29-402 relates to the obtaining of a license to
demolish a structure and there is no language contained within § 29-402 that supports the
plaintiff's position that he was not required to obtain a demolition permit from the defendant
Town of Bethel. To the contrary, General Statutes § 29-406 clearly provides that no person shall
demolish any structure without obtaining a permit for the particular demolition from the building
official of the town where the building was located. Section 43-6 of the Town of Bethel Town
Code clearly sets forth both that a permit fee is required for a demolition permit and how such fee
is calculated.Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the defendant Town of Bethel properly
required a demolition permit be obtained by the plaintiff and properly charged the plaintiff a
demolition permit fee of $1157.71. The plaintiff has not met his burden of proving by a fair
preponderance of the evidence that the demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 was wrongfully
assessed. Accordingly, judgment shall enter in the defendant Town of Bethel’s favor.
IV
CONCLUSION
After having considered the evidence and testimony presented, the court finds in favor of
the defendant Town of Bethel on the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the demolition permit fee of
$1,157.71 paid to the defendant Town of Bethel and judgment shall enter in the defendant Town
of Bethel’s favor.
BY THE COURT,
f
OZALIS, J
Preview
DOCKET NO, DBD-CV-13-5009145 SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PASQUALE MURACA, : DANBURY Plaintiff, : VS. TOWN OF BETHEL Defendant. : January29, 2015 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties in this action are the plaintiff, Pasquale Muraca, and the defendant, Town of Bethel. On February 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a small claims writ against defendant Town of Bethel for the recovery of a demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 that the plaintiff paid to the defendant Town of Bethel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Town of Bethel wrongly accepted this fee for a demolition permit because pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 29- 402 (c), he was exempt from paying any permit fee to demolish his house. The defendant Town of Bethel moved to transfer this action to the regular docket of the Superior Court and such motion was granted on March 22, 2014. On July 5, 2013, the defendant Town of Bethel filed its answer and special defense to the plainti€escompia inO'cduténding that both General Statutes § 29- rr 7 AG 406 and and Chapter 43, § 43-6 of the-TownofBéethel T8%n Code require the payment of this permit fee. ef 2 Wd G2 NUP Stee Trial was conducted in this eet $ 0} + Yanaar ‘ 3 an G i : dio nL 340 XN CH ol . vo e. mur aca, yo e o Lal he poeIl THE EVIDENCE The court finds the following facts. On April 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a permit application for the demolition of a house and garage located at 32 Maple Avenue, Bethel, Connecticut. (Trial Ex. D.) At the time the plaintiff filed his permit application, he paid a permit demolition fee of $1,157.71 to defendant Town of Bethel. (Trial Ex. E.) A permit for demolition was issued by the defendant Town of Bethel and the house and garage located at 32 Maple Avenue, Bethel, Connecticut was demolished. (Trial Ex. E.) : I DISCUSSION The plaintiff has moved for judgment with respect to his claim that the defendant Town of Bethel wrongfully charged him $1,157.71 for a demolition permit fee and seeks recovery of such fee. The plaintiff contends that General Statutes § 29-402 (c) exempts the payment of any fee for demolition. Section 29-402 titled, “License for demolition business: Application; fees; refusal or revocation. Exemptions, provides, in relevant part, that “(b)[n Jo person shall engage in the business of demolition of buildings without a license obtained from the Department of Construction Services .” Section 29-402 (c) further provides in relevant part “The provisions of this section shall not apply to . . . (4) the demolition of a single family residence or outbuilding by an owner of such structure if it does not exceed’a height of thirty feet... .” Section 29-402 addresses the requirement of a license to demolish a structure and not a permit and/or fee for the demolishing of such structure.General Statutes Section 29-406, titled “Permit for demolition of particular structure, Exemption. Waiting period,” does provide in relevant part: “(a) No person shall demolish any building, structure or part thereof without obtaining a permit for the particular demolition undertaking from the building official of the town, city or borough wherein such building or part thereof is located.” Section 43-1 of the Town of Bethel Town Code provides that: “No person, firm, corporation or other entity shall demolish any building, structure or part thereof without first obtaining a permit from the Building Department. No such permit shall be issued until the applicant: (a) complies with the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes, Section 29-406.” (Trial Ex. C.) Section 43-6 of the Town of Bethel Town Code titled “Permit Fee,” provides that “the applicant shall pay a fee of $35 or one percent of assessed value, whichever is greater, for said demolition permit.” (Trial Ex. C.) The plaintiff was assessed a demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 and paid such fee. The plaintiffs contention that General Statutes § 29-402 exempts him from paying a demolition permit fee is without merit. Section 29-402 relates to the obtaining of a license to demolish a structure and there is no language contained within § 29-402 that supports the plaintiff's position that he was not required to obtain a demolition permit from the defendant Town of Bethel. To the contrary, General Statutes § 29-406 clearly provides that no person shall demolish any structure without obtaining a permit for the particular demolition from the building official of the town where the building was located. Section 43-6 of the Town of Bethel Town Code clearly sets forth both that a permit fee is required for a demolition permit and how such fee is calculated.Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the defendant Town of Bethel properly required a demolition permit be obtained by the plaintiff and properly charged the plaintiff a demolition permit fee of $1157.71. The plaintiff has not met his burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 was wrongfully assessed. Accordingly, judgment shall enter in the defendant Town of Bethel’s favor. IV CONCLUSION After having considered the evidence and testimony presented, the court finds in favor of the defendant Town of Bethel on the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the demolition permit fee of $1,157.71 paid to the defendant Town of Bethel and judgment shall enter in the defendant Town of Bethel’s favor. BY THE COURT, f OZALIS, J