Opinion ID: 3157467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certificate of Occupancy

Text: [¶21] We turn to Desfosses’s contention regarding her right to appeal the CEO’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy are issued pursuant to Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1203-1 (Feb. 17, 2004), which states: “No new structure shall be occupied or used . . . prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Code Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer shall not issue an occupancy permit unless the new structure or proposed use is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.” On appeals, the Ordinance instructs the ZBA “[t]o affirm, modify, or set aside the action of the Building Inspector in issuing or denying building permits or certificates of occupancy when it is alleged that the action is based on an erroneous interpretation of this Ordinance.” Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1003-1 (Feb. 17, 2004). Thus, section 1003-1 apparently limits the ZBA’s appellate jurisdiction over challenges to certificates of occupancy to those instances in which it is the “Building Inspector” who issued the certificate of occupancy, and only “when it is alleged that the action is based on an erroneous interpretation” of the Ordinance. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1003-1. Another provision of the Ordinance, in contrast, more broadly allows that “[a]n administrative or variance appeal may be taken to the Board of Appeals by an aggrieved party from any decision of the Code 15 Enforcement Officer.”13 Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1003-6(1)(a)(1) (Feb. 17, 2004) (emphases added). [¶22] These provisions, like those regarding site plan amendments, are not models of clarity. Although section 1003-1 refers to certificates of occupancy as issued by the “Building Inspector,” section 1203-1, which provides the very requirement of obtaining a certificate of occupancy, states that those certificates must be obtained from the CEO. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance §§ 1003-1, 1203-1. Section 1003-6(1)(a)(1) likewise refers to decisions of the CEO, but contains no mention of the “Building Inspector.” Given that the Ordinance requires that the CEO issues certificates of occupancy, given that the term “Building Inspector” suggests a role identical to that of the CEO, and given that the Ordinance does not otherwise distinguish between a Building Inspector and a CEO, we interpret section 1003-1 to regard appeals of certificates of occupancy issued by the City’s CEO. [¶23] In any event, WWS argues that because Desfosses’s challenge to the certificate of occupancy is based on whether the construction of the retaining wall and fence complies with the terms of the site plan, it technically does not regard “an erroneous interpretation of [the] Ordinance,” as is required for appeals of 13 Section 1003-6 is inexplicably titled, “SHORELAND VARIANCES,” but otherwise contains no discussion of either shoreland or variances. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1003-6 (Feb. 17, 2004). 16 certificates of occupancy pursuant to section 1003-1, and therefore that section 1003-1 provides no authority for Desfosses’s particular appeal of WWS’s certificate of occupancy. WWS’s reading of section 1003-1 is unnecessarily narrow. A certificate of occupancy cannot be issued unless the new structure conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1203-1(A). Among the terms of the Zoning Ordinance are those that set out the criteria for obtaining site plan approval, require an applicant to obtain site plan approval, and allow the imposition of conditions for site plan approval. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance §§ 1106, 1107. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy when the terms of that site plan approval—including its conditions—are not fulfilled is necessarily a violation of the very portions of the Ordinance that require site plan approval and a certificate of occupancy. An evaluation of whether the terms of the site plan approval and its conditions were met is dependent on the CEO’s interpretation of the Ordinance provisions pursuant to which that approval was granted and those conditions imposed. Therefore, we interpret the plain language of section 1003-1 to provide that the ZBA had jurisdiction to consider Desfosses’s appeal of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. For this reason, we conclude that the ZBA erred in refusing to exercise that jurisdiction,14 and we remand the 14 Even if the plain language of the Ordinance provided for no such right of appeal, we would again be bound by our interpretation of 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(1) to require that certificates of occupancy may be appealed to the ZBA in any event. Notwithstanding WWS’s attempts to argue that no such appeal is 17 matter to the Superior Court with instructions to remand the certificate of occupancy appeal to the ZBA for consideration of the appeal on its merits. The entry is: Judgment of the Superior Court vacated and remanded with instructions to enter an order (1) remanding Desfosses’s appeal of the approval of the site plan amendment to the City of Saco Planning Board for consideration on the merits, and (2) remanding Desfosses’s appeal of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to the City of Saco Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration on the merits. authorized, we have held that “the issuance or denial of a certificate of occupancy is a decision subject to judicial review.” Salisbury v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2002 ME 13, ¶ 13, 788 A.2d 598. The limitation we have placed on appeals of certificates of occupancy is that such appeals “may not . . . substitute for an appeal of the underlying permit.” Id. ¶ 14. We explained: If the permittee has complied with the terms of a valid permit, an abutter may not challenge the issuance of the certificate of occupancy based on a defect in the permit. If, however, the permittee has meaningfully exceeded the authority contained in the permit, or otherwise violated conditions of the permit, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy may be challenged. Id. Desfosses is not attempting to appeal the certificate of occupancy in lieu of appealing the initial site plan review; she does not object, and has never objected, to the terms of the initial site plan approval, including Condition #11. Although she does challenge the site plan amendment in a separate portion of the matter, her appeal of the certificate of occupancy regards whether WWS actually complied with all of the conditions of the site plan approval necessary to obtain the certificate of occupancy, and more particularly, whether Condition #11 was ever satisfied. 18 On the briefs: C. Alan Beagle, Esq., Beagle, Steeves & Ridge, LLC, Portland, for appellant Theresa Desfosses Timothy S. Murphy, Esq., Prescott Jamieson Murphy Law Group, LLC, Saco, for appellee City of Saco David M. Hirshon, Esq., and Marshall J. Tinkle, Esq., Hirshon Law Group, PC, Portland, for appellee WWS Properties, LLC At oral argument: C. Alan Beagle, Esq., for appellant Theresa Desfosses Marshall J. Tinkle, Esq, for appellee WWS Properties, LLC York County Superior Court docket numbers AP-2013-45, AP-2014-09, AP-2014-17 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY