Nangle v. Town of Windham
| Decision Date | 06 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | CUMSC-AP-15-0040 |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
| Parties | TIMOTHY NANGLE and ELIZABETH NANGLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF WINDHAM, MICHAEL MANNING, MGM BUILDERS, INC., & ERNEST VALENTE, Defendants-Appellees. |
Plaintiffs-Appellants Timothy and Elizabeth Nangle (the ''Nangles'') Appeal from a decision by the Town of Windham Planning Board pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B. Based on the following, the Nangles appeal is denied. The decision of the Town of Windham Planning Board is affirmed.
On July 2, 2015, Michael Manning, MGM Builders, Inc., and Ernest Valente (collectively, the "Applicants") submitted an application to the Town of Windham Planning Board (the "WPB") for final site plan review. (R. 1.) The Applicants sought approval of their site plan for the construction of a 2, 000-foot private road connecting River Road, a public I roadway, to Evans Ridge Road, a private road. (Id.) The proposed road would be located over two properties referred to as Lot 21 and Lot 22 on the Town of Windham Tax Map 5. (Id.)
Initially the application was comprised of three applications for each phase of the project. (Id.) Manning was the applicant for Phase 1, MGM Builders, Inc. was the applicant for Phase 2, and Ernest Valente was the applicant for Phase 3. (Id.) The preliminary site plans, the revised site plans, and the road survey plan submitted with the application showed that, as part of Phase 3, the Applicants intended to connect the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road where Evans Ridge Road crosses a parcel of land referred to as Lot 21-3C.[1] (R. 37, 42, 45.) Included in the application was a copy of an access easement deed, dated June 2, 2010, purporting to grant Michael S. Manning an easement to use Evans Ridge Road as it crosses Lot 21-3C. (R. 20.)
The WPB's Staff Review Committee held a site walk on July 27 2015, and reviewed the application on July 28, 2015. (R. 48.) A public hearing on the Applicants' site plan was held during the WPB's August 10, 2015 meeting. (R. 58.) A representative spoke on behalf of the Applicants. (Id.) The Applicants' representative informed the WPB that the application was no longer three separate applications with three separate applicants. (Id.) The application was now a single application by the three Applicants. (Id.)
Mr. Nangle spoke at the public hearing. (R. 61-62.) Mr. Nangle asserted that Evans Ridge Road ran across his property and that he had an easement to use Evans Ridge Road. (R. 62.) Mr. Nangle asserted that connecting the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road would overburden his easement because there was no way to control access and egress over Evans Ridge Road or prevent others from crossing his property. (R. 61-62.)
Following the public hearing, the Applicants' counsel sent an email to the WPB on August 21, 2015. (R. 76.) The email sought to address issues raised by WPB's attorney regarding whether the Applicants' had demonstrated sufficient right, title, or interest in order to connect the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road. (R. 73-76.) Attached to the email was another copy of the June 2, 2010 access easement deed purporting to grant Michael S. Manning the right to use Evans Ridge Road where it crosses Lot 21-3C. (R. 77.)
The Applicants' site plan was discussed again at the WPB's August 24, 2015 meeting. (R. 82.) Mr. Nangle and Elizabeth Nangle both spoke during the meeting. (R. 83-84, 88-89.) Mr. Nangle asserted that the Applicants' right, title, or interest to use land in the manner for which they sought approval had not been fully investigated by the WPB. (R. 84.) Mr. Nangle again asserted that people would use Evans Ridge Road to cross his property despite the fact that they were not paying to maintain Evans Ridge Road. (R. 88.)
On August 25, 2015, the WPB issued a letter informing the Applicants that the WPB had approved their site plan to construct a new private roadway. (R. 95.) The letter contained the WPB's findings of fact and conclusions. (R. 96-99.) The WPB considered the Applicants' site plan for the proposed road as a single application. (R. 95-99.) The WPB found that the proposed road would in fact connect to Evans Ridge Road. (R. 96.) The WPB found that sufficient evidence of the Applicants' right, title, or interest to connect the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road at Lot 21-3C had been provided in the email from Applicants' counsel. (Id.)
On September 23, 2015, the Nangles filed a complaint against the Town of Windham and the Applicants pursuant to Rule 80B, appealing the WPB's decision.[2] The Nangles filed their brief and copy of the administrative record on November 2, 2015. The Town of Windham filed its brief on December 1, 2015.[3] The Applicants filed their brief on December 2, 2015. The Nangles also filed a reply brief on December 16, 2015. Oral argument was held on January 26, 2016.
As a threshold matter, the Applicants assert that the Nangles do not have standing to pursue this appeal. (Applicants' Br. 3.) In order to have standing to bring a Rule 80B appeal, the appellants must prove (1) that they were a party at the administrative proceeding, and (2) that they have suffered a particularized injury as a result of the agency's decision. Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶ 11, 879 A.2d 1007.
For the purposes of Rule 80B, the term "party" is broadly interpreted to mean an "any participant in the proceedings who is aggrieved" by the decision of the municipal agency. Id. ¶ 16. "Participation" in the municipal proceeding may be formal or informal, in person or through an attorney. Id. The "party" is not required to have initiated the municipal proceeding from which the appeal is sought. Id.
When the appellant is an abutting landowner, the requirements for establishing a particularized injury are minimal. Witham Family Ltd. v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2011 ME 104, ¶ 15, 30 A.3d 811. "An abutting landowner has a particularized injury if there is a conceivable injury." Norris Family Assocs., 2005 ME 102, ¶ 19, 879 A.2d 1007 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The abutting landowner need only assert a "reasonable allegation of a potential for particularized injury" or "a relatively minor adverse consequence" in order to establish standing. Witham Family Ltd., 2011 ME 104, ¶ 15, 30 A.3d 811 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Norris Family Assocs., 2005 ME 102, ¶ 19, 879 A.2d 1007.
Here, the Applicants do not dispute that the Nangles participated in the proceeding before the WPB. (Applicants Br. 3.) Rather, the Applicants only contend that the Nangles have not demonstrated a particularized injury. Id. The record discloses that the Nangles are abutting landowners. The preliminary plans, the revised plans, and the proposed road survey contained in the record demonstrate that Timothy E. Nangle and Elizabeth Day Nangle are the owners of Lot 21-2, which abuts Lot 21 on which the proposed road would be constructed. (R. 36-37, 41-42, 45.) The application and the site plans contained in the record disclose that the Applicants intend to connect the proposed road to the existing Evans Ridge Road. (R. 1, 37, 42.) The WPB found that the proposed road would in fact connect to Evans Ridge Road. (R. 96.) Mr. Nangle appeared at the August 10 and 24, 2015, meetings of the WPB and asserted that Evans Ridge Road ran across his lot and that he had an easement to use Evans Ridge Road; that connecting the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road would overburden his easement because there was no way to control access and egress over Evans Ridge Road or prevent others from crossing his property; and that the people would use Evans Ridge Road to cross his property despite the fact that they were not paying to maintain Evans Ridge Road. (R. 61-62, 83-84, 88-89.)
The record sufficiently discloses that the Nangles are abutting properties owners. Thus, the Nangles need only put forth a "reasonable allegation of a potential for particularized injury." Witham Family Ltd., 2011 ME 104, ¶ 15, 30 A.3d 811. Because the Nangles asserted before WPB that connecting the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road would overburden their easement to use Evans Ridge Road, the record contains sufficient allegations of a conceivable injury. Therefore, the Nangles have met their minimal burden as abutting landowners and have standing to pursue this appeal.
Turning to the Nangles' argument on appeal, the Nangles argue that the WPB's finding that the Applicants had sufficient right, title, or interest to connect the proposed road to Evans Ridge Road was "clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in the record before it." (Nangle Br. 4.)
When reviewing the decision of a municipal planning board pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B, the court reviews the decision of the planning board "for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the substantial evidence in the record." Wyman v. Town of Phippsburg, 2009 ME 77, ¶ 8, 976 A.2d 985 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The party seeking to vacate the decision bears the burden of persuasion on appeal. Bizier v. Town of Turner, 2011 ME 116, ¶ 8, 32 A.3d 1048.
The interpretation of a local ordinance is a question of law that the court reviews de novo. Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106, ¶ 8, 8 A.3d 684. The court examines the ordinance for its plain meaning. Id. ¶ 9. If the meaning of the ordinance is clear on its face, the court looks no further. Id. However, the planning board's characterizations...
To continue reading
Request your trial