115 A.3d 610
Me.2015Background
- In 2010 Donald R. Paradis obtained a building permit to construct a two‑car garage in the Town of Peru; no appeal was taken from that permit.
- On August 1, 2013 the Town sent Paradis a notice of violation (signed by the CEO, Planning Board chair, and Board of Selectmen chair) asserting the garage violated the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and directing remedial actions.
- Paradis appealed the notice to the Town Board of Appeals; the Board held hearings, accepted new evidence, and denied the appeal on October 31, 2013.
- Paradis sought reconsideration (denied), then filed an M.R. Civ. P. 80B action in Superior Court; the Superior Court affirmed the Board, and Paradis appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
- The Town Ordinance expressly precluded appeals of enforcement actions: it stated enforcement orders, requirements, decisions, and failures to act were not appealable to the Board of Appeals.
- The Maine Legislature amended the law in October 2013 (30‑A M.R.S. § 2691(4)) to make notices of violation generally appealable, but that statute took effect after the Town’s August 1, 2013 notice and expressly does not override a municipal ordinance that bars appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Paradis's Argument | Town's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Aug. 1, 2013 notice of violation | Paradis argued the notice was appealable and the Board could review the CEO’s enforcement action | Town argued its Ordinance expressly precluded appeals of enforcement notices, so the Board lacked jurisdiction | The Court held the Board lacked jurisdiction because the Town Ordinance barred appeals of notices of violation and the statutory change making such notices appealable was not yet effective for this notice |
| Whether the statute (30‑A M.R.S. § 2691(4)) entitled Paradis to appeal despite the Ordinance | Paradis relied on the legislative amendment making notices of violation generally reviewable | Town relied on the Ordinance’s express prohibition and the statute’s effective date/express savings | The Court held the statute did not apply to this notice because it became effective after the notice and does not override an ordinance that expressly prohibits appeals |
| Whether the Superior Court and this Court may reach the merits of Paradis’s substantive claims about ordinance violations | Paradis sought review of substantive determinations (notice procedures, proof standard, findings, remedy) | Town maintained no appellate review exists for this enforcement notice under the ordinance | The Court declined to reach the merits because lack of Board jurisdiction deprived the Superior Court and this Court of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
| Whether procedural defects in the Board’s process required vacatur even if appealable | Paradis pointed to procedural and evidentiary errors at the Board level | Town did not dispute some procedural irregularities but focused on jurisdictional bar | The Court noted the Board committed procedural errors (mixing de novo fact taking with appellate review and inadequate findings) and said those errors would mandate vacatur if the notice were appealable; nonetheless jurisdictional defect controlled |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubois Livestock, Inc. v. Town of Arundel, 103 A.3d 556 (Me. 2014) (prior dismissal of premature appeals of notices of violation where ordinance barred review)
- Eliot Shores, LLC v. Town of Eliot, 9 A.3d 806 (Me. 2010) (notice‑of‑violation appeals dismissed as advisory before statutory change)
- Farrell v. City of Auburn, 3 A.3d 385 (Me. 2010) (same principle regarding non‑justiciability of enforcement notices absent enforcement action)
- Hopkinson v. Town of China, 615 A.2d 1166 (Me. 1992) (administrative bodies have only statutorily conferred powers)
- Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012) (U.S. Supreme Court holding a federal compliance order was a reviewable final agency action; discussed and distinguished)