The town on Tuesday denied new allegations brought by a New Canaan homeowner who now is seeking monetary damages in connection with a claim that municipal officials harmed his property by directing water onto it from a public road as well as neighboring properties.
According to an amended complaint filed last month on behalf of the owner of 83 Putnam Road, the town not only altered a stone wall separating the property from the one behind it in order to build a drainage system that directs surface water onto the 1.17-acre lot, but also built an earthen berm on the neighboring property “which has caused the redirection of water from properties adjacent to the plaintiff’s to be directed onto the plaintiff’s property and has caused, and will continue to cause, the removal of top soil, and further soil erosion on the plaintiff’s property.”
As a result, the back yard owned by Eugene Guarnieri is “wet and diminishes its use for recreation,” according to the amended complaint, filed by Fairfield-based attorney Catherine Creager of Coles, Baldwin, Kaiser & Creager LLC.
Though the town did later move the drainage system, it said, “the surface water from the nearby public road continued to enter onto the plaintiff’s property.”
Through its attorneys at Berchem Moses PC , the town in an Aug. 27 answer to the amended complaint denied the allegations. The municipality also filed a series of special defenses against claims of breach of duty, nuisance and trespass, saying those claims are “barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.”
To the claim that New Canaan “failed to use a reasonable alternative course available, through an easement, to construct the drainage system” and also “breached its duty to make or clear the drainage system in such a manner as to cause the least possible damage resulting in harm to the plaintiff’s property,” the town’s attorneys also said the count is barred by the statute of limitations.
To the nuisance claim that the “discharge of water on the plaintiff’s property has a natural tenancy to create danger and inflict damage” and “has and will continue to interfere with the plaintiff’s right to hold and enjoy his property,” the town filed a special defense saying that Guarnieri himself “has failed to mitigate said injuries, losses and damages.”
A Sept. 6 status conference has been scheduled in the matter, which is before the state Superior Court, Connecticut Judicial Branch records show.
The Board of Selectmen at its Aug. 20 meeting approved legal bills that included a $376 line item for the Guarnieri case.
The original complaint—in which the plaintiff sought an injunction (not monetary damages) and noted only the drainage system and not the berm—had been filed last summer.