PERU – The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday vacated decisions made by the Peru Board of Appeals and the Oxford County Superior Court about the construction of a garage by resident Donald Paradis that was larger than permitted.
In the ruling, the court said the Board of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider Paradis’ appeal of a notice of violation issued by the town.
In 2010, Paradis applied for and received a permit to construct a two-car garage on his property on Worthley Pond. The permit stipulated that the garage was not to be used for a residence or a camp.
However, Paradis included a kitchen and bathroom on the second story.
Three years later, the Peru Planning Board, the code enforcement officer and Board of Selectmen issued a notice of violation requiring Paradis to either remove the garage or remove the kitchen and bathroom on the second floor, because it violated multiple ordinance provisions.
Paradis appealed the notice of violation to the Board of Appeals, claiming his residential plumbing permit, authorizing the installation of fixtures, overrode the limits stated in the building permit.
On Oct. 31, 2013, the Board of Appeals decided that the code enforcement officer and the Planning Board had properly applied the ordinance provisions and voted to deny both the appeal and Paradis’ subsequent request for reconsideration.
Paradis filed a complaint with the Oxford County Superior Court, asking it to review the Board of Appeals’ decision.
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, which sent Paradis’ appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Associate Justice Ellen A. Gorman wrote in the ruling that Peru’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance “expressly precludes any appeal of a notice of violation.”
The town’s ordinance states that “any order, requirement, decision or determination made, or failure to act, in the enforcement of this ordinance is not appealable to the Board of Appeals.”
She added that since the town ordinance “expressly states that no appeal from a notice of violation may be taken,” Paradis did not have a right to appeal the notice of violation, meaning that the Board of Appeals “lacked jurisdiction to consider Paradis’ appeal, which, in turn, deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to consider it.”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
