Opinion ID: 781619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criticisms of Ceraso's 1999-2000 Operations

Text: 15 In December 1999, the Town Zoning Office, having received complaints about the condition of Ceraso's service station, issued to Ceraso an order to comply with the Fairfield Regulation. That order stated, in part, that Ceraso was in violation of the Regulation for storing an inordinate number of vehicles on the premises, which creates many safety hazards, and that in order to establish compliance Ceraso must reduce the number of unscreened vehicles to five or fewer. (Attachment to Town Zoning Office Order To Comply, dated December 17, 1999 (Order To Comply).) 16 In March 2000, Robert Ascher, who had just become Motiva's sales representative for the area that included Ceraso's station, visited Ceraso's station and observed 25-35 vehicles parked on the premises. That total did not include cars that were screened or in a repair bay or that appeared to belong to transient customers. Ascher testified at trial that he commented to Ceraso that there were a lot of cars here but that he said nothing more as to the appearance of the premises. (Trial Transcript November 6, 2001, vol. II, at 74.) Ascher visited the station two or three more times before August 2000; on each occasion, he observed conditions similar to those of his first visit and suggested to Ceraso that some of the cars be moved. 17 On August 4, 2000, Ascher conducted an image evaluation of the station, making notes of his observations. He attempted to discuss the conditions with Ceraso, asking why so many cars were present. At some point, Ceraso apparently took umbrage and ordered Ascher to leave the premises. Ascher did not give Ceraso a copy of the evaluation notes. 18 In the meantime, Fairfield zoning enforcement officer Peter Marsala had observed Ceraso's premises on several occasions, and the Town Zoning Office eventually sent Ceraso a final warning letter dated September 12, 2000. The letter indicated that if Ceraso failed to bring his operations into compliance with the Regulation, a civil fine would be imposed and his special exception permit would be revoked. A copy of that letter was sent to Motiva, as Ceraso's franchisor. 19 Shortly thereafter, in light of the Town's September 12 letter and Ascher's August 4 image evaluation, Motiva sent Ceraso a letter, by certified mail, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: 20 It has come to our attention that the Town of Fairfield, CT has issued an Order to Comply (Order) dated 12/17/99 because you have had more than 5 vehicles stored or parked on the lot. Moreover, you ignored the Order and continued to violate the Town's regulation which necessitated the Town's attorney to send you a letter on 9/12/00 demanding immediate compliance or face civil penalties of up to $2,500, in addition to revocation of the special exception permit.... 21 Your continued failure to respect the Order to Comply for over 9 months evinces blatant defiance of the local laws. As you are no doubt aware, your Lease and Agreement require you to abide by all applicable laws in the operation of your business. Termination of the franchise and franchise relationship is permitted under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) for your knowing failure to comply with federal, state or local laws or regulations relevant to the operation of the marketing premises. See Article 18.1(c)(11) of Part II of your Agreement. 22 Additionally, upon a recent inspection of your facility, the following image violations were identified: 23 — Weeds along the building and at the ID sign 24 — Unkempt, unswept and obstructed bays 25 — Unregistered vehicles 26 Demand is hereby made that you immediately satisfy both the image violations and the Town of Fairfield demands to prevent closing of the station by the Town and termination of your franchise at the subject location. Your failure to comply with this demand will put your franchise relationship in jeopardy of termination. 27 (Letter from Motiva to Ceraso dated September 18, 2000 (September 18 Letter), at 1.) There is no dispute that Ceraso received this letter. Ascher subsequently visited the premises in September and November; on each occasion, he observed that the number of cars had not changed. 28 On October 19, 2000, Marsala applied to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for revocation of Ceraso's special exception permit (the Revocation Application). That application stated, inter alia, that in December 1999, Marsala had 29 issued Mr. Ceraso an Order to Comply with § 27.4.8.5. Specifically, Mr. Ceraso was to reduce the number of unscreened vehicles on the property to five or fewer. He has failed to comply with my Order.... 30 (Attachment to Revocation Application at 1.) On November 2, 2000, the ZBA held a public hearing on that application, attended by, inter alios, Ascher, Marsala, Ceraso, and Ceraso's attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ZBA, without making any specific findings, voted to revoke Ceraso's special exception permit. 31 Ceraso appealed the decision to state court, see Ceraso v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Docket# CV-00-0379051S. That appeal had not been resolved by the time the present action was tried in the district court. Ceraso later asked the district court to take judicial notice that the matter had been settled and that his permit was not revoked. 32