|
Trouble-plagued house brings about lawsuit
Melissa Allen and Robert P. Satagaj, who own the home at 111 Collins Hill Road, have filed suit in Middlesex Superior Court against the town, the building official and the public works director...The suit contends that the two officials failed to protect the couple because the officials did not require the builder to provide adequate waterproofing and foundation drainage.
Trouble-plagued house brings about lawsuit
PORTLAND - A long-running and often-acrimonious debate over a trouble-plagued house has now spilled over into court.
Melissa Allen and Robert P. Satagaj, who own the home at 111 Collins Hill Road, have filed suit in Middlesex Superior Court against the town, the building official and the public works director.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages in excess of $15,000 as well as punitive damages, was brought after three years of prolonged wrangling, accusations and counter-accusations.
The suit contends that the two officials failed to protect the couple because the officials did not require the builder to provide adequate waterproofing and foundation drainage.
Satagaj and Allen contend that because of their alleged failure to act, the town and the two officials - Building Official Stephen Giarratana and Public Works Director Richard D. Kelsey - allowed "massive amounts of storm-water runoff" to flood portions of their home and erode sections of their property.
The suit does not mention the builder of the house by name, even though it outlines a catalogue of alleged failures and mistakes on the part of the builder, David Fugge.
First Selectwoman Susan S. Bransfield declined comment, saying, "There is no comment on this lawsuit, because this is pending litigation, and it is our policy not to comment on pending litigation."
"I have referred this matter to our town attorney (Jean D'Aquila) and to our liability carrier, who will be handling this matter for the town."
Bransfield, who inherited the issue from her predecessor in office, Edward Kalinowski, said she "looked forward to a resolution of this matter."
Choosing her words with care, Bransfield said, "My office has been approached several times by these particular owners in the past, and they have appeared at many Board of Selectmen's meetings, and have written many letters" about their house.
In all, the couple contends, they have found and recorded as many as 40 specific violations of various building codes in and around their home.
The couple has even created a Web site, collinshell.com, on which they spell out their version of the events since they bought the house in 2003.
The main issue is the run-off that can pour down onto their property from an adjoining golf course. Because of what they allege is "inadequate waterproofing and foundation drainage, water runs through and under the garage and down the driveway."
The lawsuit was filed by attorney Kenneth H. Antin of the Middletown firm Poliner, Poliner, Poliner, Antin & Cienava Rocco.
The couple further contends that the flooding has created, and will continue to create, a nuisance that unreasonably interferes with their use and enjoyment of the property. It also creates "a public safety hazard for walking and driving during cold weather when the water turns to ice; it erodes the concrete floor of the garage; and it undermines the house's foundations and footings."
The couple contends that Kelsey directed both the builder and his sub-contractors to install the drainage system in the property. They argue the fact that the system proved inadequate is his fault.
But the main thrust of the suit is clearly directed at Giarratana. They contend he issued a certificate of occupancy "without assuring that the house foundation was properly waterproofed and drained." As such, Satagaj and Allen charge, Giarratana is guilty of "a reckless disregard for the health and safety of the plaintiffs as purchasers of the lot."
Beyond the damage to the house, the couple also contends they have suffered "physical injury from falling on the ice resulting from the inadequate drainage," and that all of this has "depreciated the value of the property."
They also charge Giarrantana acted recklessly and negligently.
Whatever the merits of the lawsuit, there is general agreement among neutral observers that the property in question never should have been developed as a housing lot.
It was "a building lot of record," meaning it had been considered as a building lot before the advent of zoning. One individual with knowledge of some of the back-and-forth of the past three years suggested this week that if the lot came before town officials now, "it would never be approved as a building site."
|
Home 
