806; Farrell v. City of Auburn, 2010 ME 88, ¶¶1, 8, 3 A.3d 385 (each dismissing an 80B appeal from a notice of violation because, no matter how we ruled, the municipality retained discretion to initiate, or decline to initiate, a Rule 80K enforcement action). Some recent developments require review of that precedent. [¶ 10] In 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1367, 182 L.Ed.2d 367 (2012), that an Environmental Protection Agency “compliance order,” the equivalent of a municipal notice of violation, was a final agency action subject to judicial review because the order affected the use of the property at issue and appeal was the only adequate remedy. Id. at 1372-74; see also Annable v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 507 A.2d 592, 595-96 (Me.1986) (<HOLDING>). Here, like the compliance order at issue in
recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits holding that a court may reach the merits in a declaratory judgment action when an agency decision although a notice or advisory opinion can affect property uses holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court