Opinion ID: 1424906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the town's claim

Text: [¶ 22] Cormier contends that the trial court erred in imposing a penalty for violations of the Ordinance on days not specifically alleged in the Town's land use citation and complaint. We disagree. [¶ 23] A land use citation and complaint shall contain ... the time and place of the alleged violation or, if they are not known, the time and place at which it was first observed by the complainant .... M.R. Civ. P. 80K(c)(1) (emphasis added). The language of the Rule does not limit the complainant's recovery to the times and places alleged in the complaint. Instead, it contemplates occasions when the complainant will not know the exact time and place of all violations. Therefore, Cormier's contention that the court cannot impose a penalty for violations at times not specifically alleged in the complaint is without merit. [¶ 24] In addition, Cormier and the Temple had fair notice that the Town was accusing them of violating the Ordinance on occasions not specifically alleged in the original complaint. See Rubin, 478 A.2d at 669 n. 4. (The function of the complaint is to provide fair notice ....). The original complaint, after alleging three specific violations, proceeded to state that it is believed that the violation is an ongoing one .... (Emphasis added.). Following the complaint, the Town filed a contempt complaint and an amended contempt complaint which together alleged more than eleven additional violations. The original complaint and the subsequent contempt complaints sufficiently apprised Cormier and the Temple of the nature of the action against them. See Bolton, 584 A.2d at 617.
[¶ 25] Cormier also contends that the court erred in finding that the individuals who measured the noise level were qualified to do so pursuant to the Ordinance. We disagree. [¶ 26] The Ordinance provides that the town's Noise Control Officer, equipped with a[sic] approved sound level meter, may investigate a citiz en complaint. Noise Control Officer is defined as [t]he municipal employee trained in the use of sound level meters as authorized under this ordinance. [¶ 27] Either Paul Blanchette or Roger Stone measured the level of noise on those occasions for which the court found violations of the Ordinance. Both Blanchette and Stone were municipal employees when they recorded the level of noise. Blanchette is the town manager. Stone is the Town's alternate local plumbing inspector. In addition, Stone serves as the superintendent of the Stonington Water Company. Both Stone and Blanchette testified that as superintendent, Stone was an employee of the Town. Blanchette and Stone were also both trained in the use of the sound level meters. Given that both Stone and Blanchette were municipal employees and trained in the use of sound level meters, the court did not err in finding that they were qualified as noise control officers as defined by the Ordinance. The entry is Judgment affirmed as to the Town of Stonington v. Cormier, CV-96-76. Judgment vacated as to Eaton v. Cormier, CV-96-8. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.