Fryeburg New Church Assembly v. Saco River Corridor Com'n

• Decision Date: 24 March 1987
• Citation: 522 A.2d 1303
• Parties: FRYEBURG NEW CHURCH ASSEMBLY v. SACO RIVER CORRIDOR COMMISSION.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1303

522 A.2d 1303

FRYEBURG NEW CHURCH ASSEMBLY v. SACO RIVER CORRIDOR COMMISSION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Jan. 14, 1987.

Decided March 24, 1987.

Hastings & Son, P.A., David R. Hastings, III (orally), Fryeburg, for plaintiff.

Smith and Anderson, Glenn R. Anderson (orally), Hollis, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

The Fryeburg New Church Assembly (Assembly) appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Oxford County, affirming the denial by the Saco River Corridor Commission (Commission) of the Assembly's application for a permit to build a cabin on land located within the Limited Residential District of the Saco River corridor. On appeal, the Assembly contends the Commission erred in its finding that the Assembly's proposed cabin was not a necessary expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming use and in denying the Assembly's application for a building permit. Because we conclude that the Commission properly denied the Assembly's application, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The Assembly owns 11.5 acres of land in Fryeburg that is partially within the Saco River corridor as defined by the Saco River Corridor Act, 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 951-968 (Pamph.1986). Land within the corridor includes "land adjacent to (the Saco River) to a distance of 500 feet as measured on a horizontal plane from the normal or mean high water line of (the river) or to the edge of the 100-year floodplain if that extends beyond 500 feet, up to a maximum of 1,000 feet." 38 M.R.S.A. § 953. Development within the corridor is strictly regulated by the Act. The Assembly's land extends outside the corridor both within Maine and over the state border into New Hampshire. There are presently 19 buildings on the property. Since the late 1920's the Assembly has operated a religious summer camp on its premises.

In November 1985, the Assembly applied for a permit to construct a cabin for housing campers requiring privacy on a site in the Limited Residential District. ¹ The application indicated that the Assembly owned 2,500 feet of frontage on the Saco River. Following a hearing on the application, the Commission granted approval for the construction subject to several restrictions. The Assembly petitioned for reconsideration by the Commission and submitted new information that it owned only approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on the Saco River.

After the reconsideration hearing, the Commission denied the Assembly's application on the grounds that: (1) the application is for the construction of a single family residence that did not meet the aggregate requirements of the Limited Residential District inasmuch as at least three existing single family residences currently exist on the lot, ² and (2) the proposed structure is not a necessary expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming use.

The Assembly sought judicial review by the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Commission, and the Assembly appeals.

Where, as here, the Superior Court's review has been confined to the record developed before the Commission, we directly examine that record to determine whether the Commission abused its discretion, committed an error of law or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Kittery Water District v. Town of York, 489 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Me.1985); Keith v. Saco River Corridor Commission, 464 A.2d 150, 153 (Me.1983).

The Assembly asserts that the general operation of a summer camp on the land within the corridor is the "grandfathered" nonconforming use and the proposed cabin and its site within the Limited Residential District is a necessary expansion or enlargement of that "grandfathered" nonconforming use. We disagree.

Section 958 specifically provides that although any existing nonconforming building or structure or use of that building or structure lawful on March 19, 1974, may continue, a permit is required for the expansion, enlargement or extension of a building or structure or its use. The Assembly's application is not for a permit for the necessary expansion, enlargement, or extension of an existing nonconforming building or structure or the use of such...