- Background: The Charltons sued the Town of Oxford and Delekto, alleging nuisance due to Delekto’s construction of a house, garage, and breezeway that violated several building permit conditions and zoning ordinances (e.g., size, setbacks, height, foundations, drainage). The Charltons had previously attempted to appeal the building permit’s issuance but their appeal was deemed untimely.
- Statutory Nuisance Claims (30-A M.R.S.A. § 4302 & 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701):
- The court found that while Delekto’s violations constituted a statutory nuisance under 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4302, this statute does not provide a private right of action for individual citizens. Instead, it’s an enforcement mechanism for municipalities.
- Regarding 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701, the court affirmed that this statute applies only to specific nuisances delineated elsewhere in Title 17, and not broadly to any nuisance.
- To claim statutory nuisance damages, the Charltons needed to show “special and peculiar damages” greater than those suffered by the general public. The only violation that arguably could have caused this was the ditch/retaining wall. However, the trial court found they failed to prove any special damage from its placement.
- The court also rejected the argument that “aesthetic injury” alone is sufficient for a nuisance claim, distinguishing it from the lower standard for standing in zoning appeals.
- Common Law Nuisance Claim:
- To succeed on a common law private nuisance claim, the Charltons needed to show substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of their land, primarily that their property value was diminished.
- While Delekto’s code violations arguably showed intent to interfere and some interference (e.g., encroachment on privacy), the Charltons failed to provide sufficient evidence that their property’s market or rental value was diminished. The trial court rejected the testimony of their expert witness on this point due to an unsanctioned valuation method.
- Conclusion: The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed because the Charltons failed to prove they suffered quantifiable damages, particularly a diminution in their property’s market or rental value, which is a necessary element for both statutory and common law nuisance claims in this context.
Summary by Gemini