Opinion ID: 1937209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Action against the Building Inspector

Text: In Russell v. Farrin, docket number CV-77-103, landowner Russell sought review of the building inspector's July 8, 1977, order that he, Russell, remove the deck from his property. From the foregoing analysis it would appear reasonable to assume that this complaint, captioned Complaint for Review of Governmental Action under Rule 80B and naming as defendant the town's enforcement agent, was effective to invoke the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Examination of the complaint, however, reveals that it also should have been dismissed. In his complaint in this action, Russell did not plead the prior decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals affirming the denial of a building permit for the picnic deck. Rather, he sought direct review by the Superior Court of the building inspector's order to remove the deck. As provided in the ordinance, [10] that order was appealable only to the board, which 30 M.R. S.A. § 4963(1) (Supp.1979) establishes for the express purpose of hearing such appeals. See Fletcher v. Feeney, Me., 400 A.2d 1084 (1979). In any event, our holding in the town's enforcement proceeding that the deck was a structure forbidden within 75 feet of the shore establishes that the building inspector was entirely correct in denying the permit. The entry shall be: In CV-77-124: Appeal of Joseph M. Russell, Jr., denied. Judgment of the Superior Court modified to substitute for March 1, 1979 the date February 20, 1980 and, as so modified, affirmed. In CV-77-102 and CV-77-103: Appeals of Joseph M. Russell, Jr., dismissed. Remanded to the Superior Court for entry of an order dismissing the complaints.