Opinion ID: 2270962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [¶ 6] As an initial matter, the Town and the Owners challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court, contending that the May 30 memorandum issued by the CEO was not appealable to the ZBA in the first instance pursuant to section 705.2 of the Ordinance. [2] The Neighbors are correct in asserting that the ZBA's jurisdiction was not challenged on this ground in proceedings before the Board or in the Superior Court; however, this Court may notice a challenge to its jurisdiction at any time. M.R.App. P. 4(d); see Francis v. Dana-Cummings, 2007 ME 16, ¶ 20, 915 A.2d 412, 416. [¶ 7] Pursuant to the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance, the ZBA ordinarily has the authority [t]o hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Codes Enforcement Officer. Brunswick, Me., Zoning Ordinance, ch. 7, § 703.1(A) (May 7, 1997). Accordingly, the CEO's May 30 determination that the Owners were not creating a boarding house was appealable unless another provision of the Ordinance barred an appeal. The Town and the Owners point to section 705.2 of the Ordinance, which affords the CEO authority that is analogous to prosecutorial discretion in certain circumstances: When any person files a complaint with the [CEO] that this Ordinance is being violated, the [CEO] shall examine the subject of the complaint and take appropriate action.... If the [CEO] declines to take action on a complaint, neither that non-action nor any written record or report on the complaint constitutes an order, requirement, decision or determination which can be appealed to the [ZBA]. Whether or not to take action on a complaint is committed to the sole and exclusive discretion of the [CEO]. Brunswick, Me., Zoning Ordinance, ch. 7, § 705.2 (May 7, 1997). [¶ 8] The Town and the Owners argue that the CEO's denial of the Neighbors' complaint was final, and therefore the ZBA lacked jurisdiction to hear the Neighbors' appeal. We have said that courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by municipalities. Salisbury v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2002 ME 13, ¶ 10, 788 A.2d 598, 601. The ZBA's jurisdiction is a question of law, reviewed de novo, that must be ascertained from an interpretation of municipal statutes and local ordinances. Id. ¶ 8, 788 A.2d at 601. [¶ 9] For two reasons, we conclude that the ZBA did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. First, section 705.2 of the Ordinance gives the CEO prosecutorial discretion when a complaint is filed asserting that [the] Ordinance is being violated. Brunswick, Me., Zoning Ordinance, ch. 7, § 705.2 (emphasis added). In this case, the Neighbors believed the Ordinance was going to be violated. When the Neighbors contacted the CEO in May 2007, the Owners had already signed leases with the two groups of prospective student tenants, but the leases did not begin to run until September. A violation of the Ordinance, assuming that there was one, would not have occurred until the students actually took possession and thus created an illegal use. In the interim, any number of things could have happened to forestall that event. [¶ 10] Second, we explained in Salisbury that our precedent precludes [a] court's intrusion into municipal decision-making when a municipality decides whether or not to undertake an enforcement action. 2002 ME 13, ¶ 11, 788 A.2d at 601 (emphasis omitted). The CEO's May 30 memorandum was an advisory opinion, not a decision declining to take an enforcement action, because absent a violation occurring at that time there was nothing to enforce. The memorandum expressed the CEO's opinion concerning the proposed use, and anticipated an appeal to the ZBA, which would presumably result in a decision affecting the CEO's future enforcement decision. Because the CEO did not exercise prosecutorial discretion but rather issued a determination, see Brunswick, Me., Zoning Ordinance, ch. 7, § 703.1(A), the ZBA retained its general authority to hear the Neighbors' appeal, and this Court has jurisdiction to review the CEO's determination.