Salisbury v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2002 ME 13

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment upholding the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals' decision to vacate a certificate of occupancy and related orders concerning construction on Salisbury's property. The court held that issuance or denial of a certificate of occupancy is appealable when the construction meaningfully exceeds the authority of the underlying permit, and that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the abutters' appeal. The court also upheld rejection of Salisbury's independent equitable estoppel claim because he failed to present facts to the Superior Court and could not reasonably rely on unauthorized oral statements by a municipal official.

Holdings

1. The issuance or denial of a certificate of occupancy is a decision subject to judicial review when an applicable law or ordinance authorizes review.
2. An appeal from a certificate of occupancy may not substitute for an untimely appeal from the underlying permit, but it may challenge the certificate when the permittee meaningfully exceeded the permit's authority or violated its conditions.
3. When equitable estoppel is presented as an independent claim alongside an administrative appeal, the Superior Court acts as a trial court on the estoppel claim, and the claimant must present relevant facts through the procedures required for developing that claim.
4. A claimant cannot establish reasonable reliance against a municipality based on an unauthorized oral approval by a municipal officer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the CEO's issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
2. Whether an appeal from a certificate of occupancy may challenge construction that meaningfully exceeds the authority granted by the underlying permit.
3. Whether the Superior Court erred by declining to adjudicate Salisbury's independent equitable-estoppel claim when he failed to present facts or invoke the required Rule 80B procedure.
4. Whether Salisbury could establish equitable estoppel based on alleged oral approval by the municipal code enforcement officer.

Disposition

affirmed