Animal-Related Ordinances – Out of Sight and Out of Mind?

When was the last time you checked your animal-related ordinances to confirm that they were keeping up with, and meeting the needs of, your ever-changing community? These ordinances are easy to overlook until you need them and then, unfortunately, the tools you need may not be there. Maine law provides broad authority to enact and enforce animal-related ordinances. 

We see in our state, municipalities that include within their borders urban, residential, industrial, rural, and agricultural areas. We also see municipalities entering into contract zones or approving conditional zoning ordinances as appropriate when faced with development projects. Our rapidly changing communities need animal-related ordinances that will keep up with the new realities. For example, the person who has for many years kept horses on his or her property that may have escaped from their fenced in area from time to time, finds that his or her property is now near a road with increased traffic—an escaped horse puts both the drivers of automobiles and the horses at risk. Or, how about the person that keeps their dogs tied outside all the time. While every municipality should consider having an ordinance that puts some parameters around this, especially in the heat of the summer and the frigid winters, what do you do about the barking? Maybe you rely on your noise ordinance, but will it be enough? 

New realities include how animals are viewed, especially pets. The pet business is growing and raking in billions of dollars, which evidences the evolving view of animals kept in the household. You may recall the outrage generated when the Town of Scarborough was discussing enacting ordinances that would ban dogs from certain of its beaches during certain times. Even though this was in response to an incident related to a bird and the IF&W threatened to fine the Town, members of the community demanded that the Town act proportionately. The Town created an Animal Control Advisory Committee who generated a report attempting to balance the environmental issues with the rights and needs of dog owners. 

Also for consideration: Do you allow residents to keep a small number of chickens, even in urban areas, to provide eggs to the family? Does your ordinance contain reasonable requirements for dog day care and boarding facilities, a service used by so many people? 

Finally and importantly, are your animal-related ordinances humane and actually help you get the results you wish to achieve? Do they impose the punishment on the right party—the person violating the ordinance as opposed to the animals he or she is supposed to care for? Do you have the tools you need?

Are Notices of “No Violation” Appealable in Maine?

If a code enforcement officer (CEO) issues a written decision finding “no violation” of a land use ordinance, is that decision appealable? Recently, Maine’s Law Court tackled this very question and answered “yes”—but only so long as the ordinance does not say otherwise.

In Raposa v. Town of York, an abutter became concerned about how a neighbor was using property. The abutter contacted the CEO, who responded to the abutter with an email explaining that no violations were warranted based on the neighbor’s use of the property. The CEO’s email included a notice advising the abutter that the Board of Appeals could hear an appeal from “any order, requirement, decision, or determination” made by the CEO or any other person charged with administering the ordinance. Heeding that advice, the abutter appealed the CEO’s “no violation” determination to the Board of Appeals and then to the Superior Court, where the Town of York moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Superior Court granted the Town’s motion, finding that the Board’s review of the CEO’s decision was advisory and therefore unreviewable.

Reversing the Superior Court, the Law Court explained that Notices of Violation (NOVs) have been generally appealable since 2013—when the Legislature amended the statute governing appeals from municipal boards—except where an ordinance expressly provides that certain decisions are only advisory and may not be appealed. Although the Law Court noted that the plain language of the amended statute does not explicitly address “no violation” notices, the Court also noted that its previous decisions have “expressed the understanding that such ‘no violation’ actions are similarly appealable” because of their potential impact on property uses. In Raposa, the Law Court took the opportunity to make its previous expressions more concrete, holding conclusively that “a CEO’s written decision interpreting a land use ordinance is appealable to the Board and in turn to the Superior Court—whether the CEO finds that there is or is not a violation—so long as the ordinance does not expressly preclude appeal.” Because the Town of York’s ordinance did not have a provision that expressly precluded appeal, the Law Court found that the abutter’s appeal was not subject to dismissal by the Superior Court. 

In light of Raposa, municipalities should review the appeal provisions in their land use ordinances and update them accordingly.

Know Your Ordinance: Enforcement Orders Subject to Appeal

One thing we always look for when reviewing a land use ordinance is whether it inadvertently allows for appeal of enforcement orders issued by the code enforcement officer (CEO). We prefer not to have such orders be appealable, because a notice of violation is only a preliminary determination and will always be reviewed by a court before any penalties are assessed. Further, notices of violation are often an important first step in encouraging negotiation and resolution of violations. If a property owner can appeal a decision, he or she will usually take that step instead of trying to work things out with the CEO.

The Legislature recently highlighted this issue when it added language to the Board of Appeals statute, 30-A M.R.S. § 2691, which reads as follows:

Absent an express provision in a charter or ordinance that certain decisions of its code enforcement officer or board of appeals are only advisory or may not be appealed, a notice of violation or an enforcement order by a code enforcement officer under a land use ordinance is reviewable on appeal by the board of appeals and in turn by the Superior Court under the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80B.

It is now clear that by default, enforcement orders may be appealed. If that is not your municipality’s intention, ordinances should be amended ASAP to clearly state that there is no jurisdiction to allow such appeals.

One positive thing to note is that at least one court has refused to read the new language so broadly as to allow appeal of a CEO’s failure to find a violation. In Rappos v. Town of York, AP-16-34, abutters submitted a complaint against their neighbor and then appealed the CEO’s decision not to take action on that complaint. The Court held that neither the Zoning Board of Appeals nor the Court had jurisdiction to issue a binding order on the appeal.

Superior Court Clarifies Grandfathered Status of Non-conforming Structures

Maine’s Superior Court recently issued a decision that provides clarification on the grandfathered status of non-conforming structures and, more specifically, the circumstances under which that status may be lost. 

At issue in Plourde v. Town of Casco was the non-conforming status of a dock. In 2005, the town had issued a building permit for a dock to a family that owned property in a subdivision. The permit identified the family’s lot as the relevant lot associated with the permit. In 2016, the plaintiffs, who also owned property in the subdivision, purchased the dock from the family. The family then sold their lot separately to a new owner. After the new owner filed a complaint with the town regarding the dock, the code enforcement officer (CEO) conducted an inspection. Unable to determine who owned the dock, the CEO issued a notice of violation ordering the removal of the dock and invalidating its permit. Among other violations, the CEO cited the width of the dock and fact that the permit for the dock had been issued to the prior owner of the lot. After receiving notice of the violation, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking to construct a new temporary dock in the same location as the former dock. Ultimately, the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denied the building permit, finding that the plaintiffs’ application was for a new dock and not a grandfathered replacement dock, and that the dock was located in a beach area in violation of the town’s ordinance. 

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it is structures that are grandfathered, not owners, and so the dock and its location were grandfathered regardless of any ownership interest in the lot formerly associated with the dock. The Superior Court disagreed, however, pointing out that the rights conferred by a building permit attach to the land. Here, the 2005 building permit made the dock appurtenant to a specific lot. The court explained that although a change in ownership in the lot would not affect the non-conforming status of any appurtenant structure, that status may not be separated from the lot and sold in a transaction independent from a sale of the lot. Consequently, when the plaintiffs purchased the dock in an independent transaction, “they did not validly obtain any right or privilege to place the dock in its current location and never obtained any non-conforming status associated with the dock’s location.” As a result, the court found that the town’s ZBA appropriately denied the plaintiffs’ application for a building permit where the application was for a new dock and not a replacement for a grandfathered non-conforming dock.