With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 4302, it would have either expressed its intent in the statutory language or legislative history or, more likely, expressly enacted one.” Larrabee, 486 A.2d at 101. [¶ 19] Although Delekto, an abutting land owner, violated a land use ordinance and committed a nuisance pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4302, the Legislature, in enacting section 4302, did not intend to provide the Charltons with a cause of action for nuisance. Instead, by enacting 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452, it provided the Town with an enforcement mechanism. Specifically, section 4452 gives a municipality, and only a municipality, the authority to enforce land use regulations. Accordingly, only municipalities may bring an action for violations of such regulations. Herrle v. Town of Waterboro, 2001 ME 1, ¶ 11, 763 A.2d 1159, 1162 (<HOLDING>). The trial court, therefore, did not err in

A: holding that general creditors do not have standing to contest forfeitures
B: recognizing that private citizens do not have standing to initiate proceedings to enforce municipal zoning regulations
C: recognizing third partys right to initiate dependency proceedings under chapter 39
D: holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance
B.