Opinion
MMXCV176017522
01-17-2019
Robert MEYERS v. TOWN OF MIDDLEFIELD
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Frechette, J.
The sole issue presented is whether the court should uphold the decision of the Board of Selectman of the town of Middlefield (board) in unanimously voting to terminate the plaintiff, Robert Meyers, as the statutory building inspector of Middlefield. The court hereby dismisses the plaintiff’s appeal for the reasons that follow.
FACTS
The facts relevant to the plaintiff’s appeal are as follows. On April 18, 2011, Meyers was hired by the town of Middlefield as the statutory building inspector. As the building inspector, Meyers was tasked with ensuring structures within the town were in compliance with the state building code and processing applications for occupancy certificates. During his tenure, Meyers was directly involved in the renovation and transformation of a building on the Powder Ridge Mountain Park. Middlefield purchased the Powder Ridge property in 2008, which was vacant and in disrepair, and later sold it to Powder Ridge Mountain Park and Resort, LLC (the company) in September 2012.
During his employment with the town, Meyers was a member of the AFSCME Council 4, Local 818 Union (union). In 2015, Middlefield entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Among the provisions in the agreement was a section that protected Meyers from termination as the building inspector without just cause.
While the powder ridge property sat vacant from 2008 up to its sale in 2012, Meyers sent the town a "Notice of Unsafe Structure," which cited violations of the building code, including, inter alia, broken windows, unsafe stairs, and missing barriers around the swimming pool. The notice was later rescinded on December 27, 2012, after the sale.
Acknowledging that the company planned to implement massive renovations, Meyers sent a letter to Middlefield on December 19, 2012, requesting that the town offer him additional work hours and support for the project. In response, the town hired Harwood Loomis, a licensed architect and building official, to serve as a consultant; and Vincent Garofalo as an assistant building official to aid Meyers with the inspections of the Powder Ridge property. Moreover, the town enlisted the help of both state and local building officials, including State Building Inspector, Daniel Tierney, in order to participate in meetings pertaining to the project and provide guidance regarding the process and necessary steps to issue Powder Ridge a certificate of occupancy (CO).
During the Powder Ridge project, Meyers suffered medical issues and, as a result, had to take time off of work. During this time, Loomis, Garofalo, and Tierney were assisting with the project.
In November 2015, Edward Bailey was elected as the First Selectman of the Town of Middlefield, replacing Jon Brayshaw, who was elected to a position on the board. In 2015, Bailey became aware of issues and conflicts between Meyers and Sean Hayes, the owner of the company. In fact, throughout the duration of the Powder Ridge project, Bailey alleged, inter alia, that Meyers was failing to follow-up on his projects, accept the guidance of the various state officials who attempted to assist him in the inspection and approval process of Powder Ridge, abide by his work hours as required by his union contract, and maintain proper documentation on his long-term projects, including those documents related to Powder Ridge. As a result, Bailey placed Meyers on paid administrative leave on July 12, 2016, and conducted an investigation into Meyers’ performance and conduct. Between August and December 2016, the board held several pre-disciplinary meetings to allow Meyers and his union representative to respond to the concerns raised regarding his performance as the building inspector. Thereafter, on January 24, 2017, the board held a public hearing to consider the termination of Meyers from his position. Following the meeting, on February 16, 2017, the board voted unanimously to terminate Meyers as the building inspector.
On March 30, 2017, Meyers filed a complaint pursuant to General Statutes § 29-260(c), appealing the decision of the board. On January 2, 2018, Meyers filed a brief in support of his statutory appeal. Thereafter, on August 10, 2018, the town of Middlefield filed a reply brief, as well as a record of the public hearing in which the board voted unanimously to terminate Meyers from his position, which was accompanied by exhibits to the record. Meyers filed a reply brief on August 14, 2018, and Middlefield filed a "sur-rebuttal" brief on September 28, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s appeal.
In his complaint, Meyers concedes that Middlefield has met the statutory due process requirements in providing him with notice of the basis for his dismissal and an opportunity to be heard. Meyers filed a revised complaint on April 17, 2017.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court will begin its analysis with the applicable standard of review. Pursuant to General Statutes § 29-260, a local building official who fails to perform the duties of his office may be dismissed by the local appointing authority. A building official who is dismissed "may appeal [the decision] within thirty days following such dismissal to the superior court." General Statutes § 29-260. On appeal, "[t]he court shall review the record of such hearing and if it appears that testimony is necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal, it may take evidence or appoint a referee or a committee to take such evidence as the court may direct and report the same to the court with his or its findings of fact, which report shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made." General Statutes § 29-260. "The court may affirm the action of such authority or may set the same aside if it finds that such authority acted illegally or abused its discretion." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 29-260.
"The abuse of discretion standard is typically employed by the Appellate Court when examining evidentiary rulings made by the lower court, or discretionary rulings based on a procedural rule ..." State v. Apodaca, 303 Conn. 378, 386, 33 A.3d 224 (2012). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling ..." State v. Creech, 127 Conn.App. 489, 495, 14 A.3d 434, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 906, 17 A.3d 1045 (2011). "The salient inquiry is whether the [board] could have reasonably concluded as it did ... It goes without saying that the term abuse of discretion does not imply a bad motive or wrong purpose but merely means that the ruling appears to have been made on untenable grounds." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Halloran v. North Canaan, 32 Conn.App. 611, 614, 630 A.2d 145 (1993).
There is little case law on the standard set forth in § 29-260 for the review of administrative appeals from boards of selectmen; however, our Superior Courts have dealt extensively with appeals from decisions of zoning boards. "[Zoning boards are] endowed with a liberal discretion, and its [actions are] subject to review by [a] court only to determine whether [they were] unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal." Pleasant Farms Development, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 218 Conn. 265, 269, 585 A.2d 1189 (1991). "The burden of proof to demonstrate that the board acted improperly is upon the plaintiffs." Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703, 707, 535 A.2d 799 (1988). "Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board ... and decisions of local boards will not be disturbed so long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a full hearing." Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 206, 658 A.2d 559 (1995). "The question is not whether the trial court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the record before the agency supports the decision reached." (Emphasis added.) Calandro v. Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 439, 440, 408 A.2d 229 (1979). "A decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence." Kobyluck Brothers, LLC. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-06-4104122 (May 13, 2008, Hendel, J.T.R.). "Substantial evidence is enough evidence to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict, if the conclusion to be drawn is one of fact." Side Step, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV-12-6008717-S (January 21, 2014, Lee, J.). "The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a decision] from being supported by substantial evidence." Property Group, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 226 Conn. 684, 698, 628 A.2d 1277 (1993).
"There can be no doubt about the wide discretion attaching to the board as an administrative agency of government. It is a discretion which may be overruled only if the board has not acted fairly or with proper motives or upon valid reasons." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Board of Selectmen, 144 Conn. 61, 66, 127 A.2d 48 (1956). "The burden of proving that the board acted improperly [is on] the plaintiff." Id. "[R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable ... [T]he trial court may [not] retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact ... [The court’s] ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Board of Selectmen v. Freedom of Information Commission, 294 Conn. 438, 446, 984 A.2d 748 (2010).
The plaintiff has cited Vanghele v. Fairfield, 156 Conn.App. 714, 722, 115 A.3d 474 (2015) (noting court’s function is limited to examination of record to determine whether decision was factually and legally supported), exhibiting his agreement that this is the standard the court should follow in reviewing his appeal. See Docket Entry # 119.
DISCUSSION
On January 24, 2017, the board held a public hearing moderated by town attorney, Bruno Morasutti, to consider the dismissal of Meyers as the Middlefield building inspector. The public hearing was Meyers’ opportunity to be heard and respond to the specific grounds for dismissal, and for the board to hear from the public prior to a decision being rendered on his termination. Members of the public, including Meyers’ union representatives, Robert Parziale and Kelly Martinez, his colleagues, members of the Powder Ridge project, and residents of the town of Middlefield testified as to Meyers’ performance as the building inspector during this hearing. After public comment, the board moved to close the meeting to allow for deliberations at a later date. Thereafter, on February 16, 2017, the board held a special meeting to put the decision to a vote and, as the record reflects, the board unanimously voted to dismiss Meyers as the Middlefield building inspector pursuant to General Statutes § 29-260. Prior to the January 24, 2017 public hearing, the board provided Meyers with a notice of public hearing in which the board specified the following reasons for considering his dismissal as the building inspector:
"[First] [y]our failure and/or refusal to promptly reasonably perform your duties, including but not limited to longstanding projects such as Powder Ridge. Indeed, you allowed months to pass with little if any follow-up to resolve such long-term projects. Your failure and/or refusal in this regard is supported by the complaints that the Town has received that you have intentionally and unjustifiably obstructed and prevented Powder Ridge from obtaining a certificate of occupancy for an extended period of time and your own statements made on several occasions that you will never issue such a certificate of occupancy with respect to that project. It is further supported by your failure to accept guidance and/or directives of state and local officials who were assisting with resolving this project ... [Second] [y]our failure to maintain and retain proper documentation submitted by applicants and records of your own actions with respect to such long-term projects such as Powder Ridge. Such documentation issues include errors and inaccuracies and failure to provide relevant and required backup for legal documents ... [Third] [y]our failure to follow reasonable instructions and/or abide by your assigned work hours ... [Fourth] [y]our display of inappropriate conduct and/or insubordination ..." A review of the record reveals that there is more than substantial evidence to support the board’s decision to terminate Meyers.
The record before the court incorporates several exhibits, including, but not limited to, email exchanges, letters, and other documentation regarding Meyers’ duties with respect to his position as the building inspector and his work on the Powder Ridge project.
At the outset of the Powder Ridge project, Meyers personally requested assistance and, in response, the town hired, among others, Garofalo and Tierney to assist in obtaining Powder Ridge their certificate of occupancy (CO). Nevertheless, as the record supports the finding that, Meyers continually obstructed the assistance he personally requested and the issuance of an occupancy certificate. In December 2015, the company began renovating the second floor restaurant of a structure on the Powder Ridge property, which was subject to approval by the building inspector. On December 23, 2015, Garofalo conducted the inspection of the second floor, and determined that it was appropriate to grant a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO), provided that a fire watch be on duty since the sprinkler system was not in operation. In conjunction with this inspection, the Middlefield fire department agreed to provide this service to Powder Ridge at no charge. Garofalo wrote a letter to Meyers to inform him that he and Tierney, who also performed an inspection of the second floor, determined that the building was safe to occupy and that a TCO should be issued with the fire watch present. On January 8, 2016, Garofalo then issued a written report advising Meyers that the second floor had met the criteria for granting a TCO. On January 14, 2016, Meyers issued his own report acknowledging that he received a request for a TCO, but that he decided to deny it because of the fact that the sprinkler system was nonoperational. Based on this report and his inspection of the premises, Meyers then issued an abatement order, effectively shutting down Powder Ridge.
In his Memorandum of Law in Support of Reinstatement as the Statutory Building Inspector, Meyers concedes that he "sent a letter to the town dated December 19, 2012 requesting additional hours and support. Moreover, there were several other large construction projects happening at the same time in the Town of Middlefield, which Meyers would have to oversee." See Docket Entry # 115. Nonetheless, in his "Rebuttal Brief," Meyers asserts that he "neither requested nor required assistance." See Docket Entry # 119.
Thereafter, as one of the personnel hired to assist Meyers with this project, Tierney granted Powder Ridge a waiver for the fire sprinkler requirement so that the building could receive a TCO to open for business. Although Tierney’s waiver superseded Meyers’ denial of the TCO, the next day, Meyers again inspected Powder Ridge and issued a second notice of violation on account of the absence of a sprinkler system. Upon the second notice of violation being issued, the Middlefield fire marshal issued his own report, indicating that the fire department could not provide a fire watch in the absence of the TCO.
On January 26, 2016, Bailey asked Tierney whether Meyers had any justification to issue a notice of violation after the waiver for the sprinkler system was put in place. Tierney stated that Meyers had not justification to do so.
The next month, Powder Ridge underwent inspection for an electrical permit for fire pump wiring. The construction services building official who conducted the inspection determined that the requirements were met for the state building code, and Garofalo advised Meyers on February 9, 2016, that Powder Ridge was ready for the approval of the electrical permit. On February 12, 2016, Garofalo asked Meyers whether he would be issuing the permit and Meyers stated that he would issue it based on his conversation with the building official that conducted the inspection of the fire pump. Thereafter, however, Meyers sent an email to Tierney on February 17, 2016, notifying him that there were issues with the electrical permit application that did not comply with the code. Garofalo emailed Meyers to inform him that a modification was not required for the electrical permit, and he invited Meyers to contact Tierney if he required any further information on the matter, but Meyers still decided that a modification was required. Tierney then emailed the members of the Powder Ridge project, including Meyers, that "everyone involved in the project" already explained to Meyers that a modification was not necessary, but Tierney instructed Hayes to submit one anyway in order to move the project along. The following day, Tierney granted the modification and copied the approval to Meyers. Thereafter, on March 2, 2016, Hayes requested another TCO from Meyers and the reason for its continued denial. Two days later, Meyers emailed Garofalo requesting information regarding the inspection of the septic pump wiring and Garofalo informed Meyers that the pump should not hold up the TCO because it is not a part of the structure that is subject to approval by the building inspector. On March 7, 2016, the pump passed inspection. Meyers received notice of this approval and Hayes emailed Meyers again requesting the CO. Meyers reported that he would conduct a final walkthrough of the property the following week prior to the issuance of a CO.
In March, Garofalo emailed Bailey to inform him that Powder Ridge had been inspected on numerous occasions, by many officials, and that non-significant items were being used as a pretext for denying the TCO. In this email, Garofalo also expressed his opinion that Meyers was not interested in compliance, that he was ignoring his duties, and Garofalo encouraged Bailey to attend the upcoming inspection, characterizing it as a "train wreck." A final walk through of the Powder Ridge property took place on April 11, 2016, after the fire chief of Middlefield indicated that a certificate of occupancy could be rendered. On April 12, 2016, Garofalo advised the members of the project, including Hayes, that the final inspections were completed and that a CO should issue. In response, Meyers acknowledged that he received another request for the CO, but denied it because he was not permitted to attend the final inspection and did not have paperwork concerning the propane tanks outside of the restaurant/lodge. In a May 13, 2016, email, Tierney notified Meyers that the propane tanks had no bearing on the issuance of a CO. Moreover, on numerous occasions, Hayes personally notified Meyers that he had already submitted the propane tank application in 2012 and 2013 in a November 30, 2015 letter to Bailey, a May 5, 2016 memorandum to Bailey, and in-person during an inspection of Powder Ridge on July 8, 2016. After this exchange took place, Meyers then referred Hayes to Attorney Steven Lesco of the Office of the State’s Attorney on May 19, 2016, for criminal prosecution based on the building code violations on Powder Ridge. In an email dated May 25, 2016, Hayes asked Tierney about the contents of the referral and Tierney replied that the only violation cited was the sprinkler code violation from earlier that year that was no longer existing. The record shows that the State’s Attorney’s office never acted upon the referral.
On June 1, 2016, Hayes sent another request for a CO to Meyers and Meyers replied on June 16, 2016, stating that the propane tank violation had not been resolved and that it was "funny" because the section of the code previously cited by Tierney is incorporated into the statute which requires a permit to exist for the propane tanks. Thereafter, Meyers asked Hayes to furnish a copy of the permit he had for the tanks. On the same day, Bailey asked for a report of the inspection he conducted, which was later submitted on June 21, 2016. The record shows that in this report Meyers denied the CO and cited violations that had no bearing on the issuance of the CO for the second floor lodge of Powder Ridge. In his inspection report, Meyers cited issues pertaining to access aisles in the parking lots that do not meet minimum width requirements, van parking signage and space requirements, walking surface violations that failed to meet a certain slope, missing handrails, missing bolts, and the absence of a permit for one of the propane tanks, among other issues.
In response to this report, Hayes appealed Meyers’ decision to state building inspector, Joseph Cassidy, who emailed Hayes on June 24, 2016, advising him that the propane tanks did not fall under the jurisdiction of the state building code or the local building official. Cassidy later responded to an inquiry made by Meyers regarding the propane tanks, informing him that the fire marshal had jurisdiction over the liquid propane tanks. Later, on July 5, 2016, Hayes sent a third formal request to Meyers for the issuance of a CO. Meyers responded to Hayes, notifying him that he prepared a letter and placed it on "Nancy’s" desk to be sent out. The record shows that Nancy made a handwritten notation on this email stating that she returned from vacation on July 6, 2016, but did not find the letter Meyers was referring to. Finally, on July 8, 2016, Hayes emailed state and local officials regarding the issues he had in attempting to obtain a CO for the preceding two years. In this email, Hayes wrote that Meyers had publicly stated that he would never sign the CO for Powder Ridge, and advised these officials that Powder Ridge would have to shut down if the company could not obtain the CO. Termination proceedings commenced after Bailey recorded, through a series of memoranda that Meyers was failing to perform the duties of his job. In fact, throughout the duration of the Powder Ridge project, Bailey recorded instances of Meyers’ insubordination and inappropriate behavior while serving as the building inspector. The first record of such insubordination was recorded on May 12, 2016. On this date, Bailey drafted a memorandum documenting his interaction with Meyers on the same day. Bailey noted that he inquired about the CO for Powder Ridge and Meyers dismissively replied that they do not have one and then proceeded to inform Bailey that he was stopping him from doing his job. Bailey further noted that Meyers’ demeanor was dismissive towards his duties and he seriously doubted that Meyers had any intention of following up on the Powder Ridge matter. To Bailey’s knowledge, Meyers had not made an attempt to facilitate a CO since the beginning of April and Bailey had received advice from the Deputy State Building Official that there were no outstanding issues prohibiting the issuance of a CO. The next day, on May 13, 2016, Bailey drafted another memorandum noting that Meyers presented him with a grievance form and that his demeanor was threatening and provocative. When Bailey told Meyers to clear up the CO for Powder Ridge, Meyers stated that he was not issuing a CO for Powder Ridge and Bailey noted that it was not the first time he had heard him make this statement.
During the public hearing, Bailey quoted from an email he received from Garofalo describing Meyers’ conduct as showing a "[l]ack of professional courtesy, creation of anguish, frustration, drama, unnecessary bordering on harassment."
During the public hearing, Bailey noted that he overheard Meyers on the phone one day and heard him state, "I will never issue a certificate of occupancy for Powder Ridge."
On June 15, 2016, Meyers conducted an inspection of the Powder Ridge property. Thereafter, in a memorandum signed by Bailey and dated June 21, 2016, Bailey writes that he requested a report from Meyers as to the result of the inspection with a copy to be submitted to him by the next day, June 16, 2016. Bailey then received an email from Meyers stating that it was an "unreasonable request." Bailey followed up and extended the deadline to June 17, 2016, but Bailey never received a report until June 21, 2016.
On July 7, 2016, Bailey prepared another memorandum to document his interaction with Meyers. On July 5, 2016, Bailey inquired with Meyers about re-inspecting the Powder Ridge property pursuant to Hayes’ request. According to Bailey, Meyers responded that he was "going to do a drive around." Bailey informed Meyers that Hayes sent an email to him and that he would like to set up an appointment so that Hayes could escort Meyers during the inspection. Meyers responded that he was "too busy and had other things to do" and noted that he would do an outside inspection at Powder Ridge. Thereafter, on July 8, 2016, Bailey filed a final memorandum; this time, documenting Meyers’ inspection of Powder Ridge the same day. Bailey indicated that Hayes was informing Meyers that he had sent over applications for his propane tanks in 2012 and 2013 and that they needed to be signed by Meyers. Meyers responded that he didn’t want to hear it and told Hayes to stop. According to Bailey, Meyers then stated that he "refuses to be involved in [a] hostile situation," walked to his vehicle, and said he was leaving.
During the public hearing, Bailey cited that Meyers walked off of the job and that is when he placed him on administrative leave.
In addition to the documented claims of insubordination, the record is replete with instances of Meyers stating that he would never sign the certificate of occupancy for Powder Ridge. In a June 13, 2016, email, Hayes wrote to Tierney that Meyers told his architect two years ago "I will never sign a CO for that lodge as long as I am the Building Official in town." On July 8, 2016, Hayes emailed state officials regarding the delays with the Powder Ridge project, noting that Meyers has publicly stated "he will never sign the CO for the lodge at Powder Ridge." Moreover, as indicated, in the May 13, 2016, memorandum drafted by Bailey, Meyers stated that he was not issuing a CO for Powder Ridge, and Bailey noted during the public hearing that he overheard Meyers make this statement to someone over the phone.
Moreover, the record supports the assertion that, in addition to his intention to never issue a CO, Meyers was flippant toward the Powder Ridge project as a whole. In a June 16, 2016, email exchange Hayes asked Meyers for clarification on the building code section that had jurisdiction over the installation of the propane tanks on the Powder Ridge property. Meyers replied that it was "funny."
The court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the termination of Meyers as the building inspector in Middlefield. The record shows that, on multiple occasions, Meyers failed to perform the essential duties of his office, intentionally obstructed the issuance of a TCO and CO for Powder Ridge during his tenure as the building inspector, even after all of the building code requirements were met. In fact, the record shows that Meyers found minor issues, such as the absence of permits for propane tanks, to deny the CO even when he had no jurisdiction over the propane tanks in the first place.
The plaintiff, for the first time in his reply brief dated August 14, 2018, raised the issue of Bailey being an interested party. This issue was not raised below, nor was it pleaded in the complaint. "[It] is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint ... [courts do] not have the discretion to look beyond the pleadings and trial evidence to decide claims not raised ... The purpose of the [petition] is to put the [respondent] on notice of the claims made, to limit the issues to be decided, and to prevent surprise." Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 772, 780-81, 167 A.3d 952 (2017). See also Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners of Naugatuck, 223 Conn. 354, 367-68, 613 A.2d 254 (1992) (holding claim of bias must be raised in timely manner). Henderson v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 202 Conn. 453, 462, 521 A.2d 1040 (1987) (noting failure to raise claim of disqualification with reasonable promptness after learning ground for claim constitutes waiver); Statewide Grievance Committee v. Egbarin, 61 Conn.App. 445, 462, 767 A.2d 732 (2001) (noting failure to raise procedural claim or failure to utilize remedy to cure procedural defect can constitute waiver of right to object to alleged defect). The court notes, in any case, that the vote of the board to terminate the plaintiff was unanimous.
At the outset of the project, Meyers personally requested assistance, but ended up ignoring the assistance he asked for. Whenever the members of the Powder Ridge project conducted an inspection or reported compliance to Meyers, the record supports the inference that he referenced inconsequential matters as a pretext to deny Powder Ridge a CO. This is evident from Meyers’ conduct dating from January through July of 2016, where Meyers stalled and obstructed the efforts of the members of his team and the Powder Ridge project as a whole. Meyers further refused to pass on items that fell under the building code, walked off of an inspection of Powder Ridge, raised additional issues that never were under the jurisdiction of the building code, including the size of the accessibility ramps at Powder Ridge. Moreover, Meyers stated that he was "too busy" to perform an inspection on one occasion, was flippant when he emailed Hayes stating that it was funny that the code Tierney cited was the same section of the statute which required a permit for propane tanks, and in numerous instances stated that he would never issue a certificate of occupancy for Powder Ridge. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision to terminate Meyers.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision to terminate Meyers from his position as the building inspector and the board did not act illegally or abuse its discretion in reaching its decision. Accordingly, Meyers’ appeal is hereby dismissed.