Osprey Family Trust v. Town of Owls Head, Docket No. Kno–15–288.
Decision Date | 07 June 2016 |
Docket Number | Docket No. Kno–15–288. |
Citation | 2016 ME 89,141 A.3d 1114 |
Parties | OSPREY FAMILY TRUST v. TOWN OF OWLS HEAD et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Paul L. Gibbons, Esq., The Law Offices of Paul L. Gibbons, LLC, Camden, for appellant Osprey Family Trust.
David F. Jenny, Esq., Owls Head, for cross-appellant Jill Delaney.
The Town of Owls Head and Claire Perry did not file a brief.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶ 1] The Osprey Family Trust appeals, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B, from a judgment of the Superior Court (Knox County, Billings, J. ) affirming a decision of the Town of Owls Head Board of Appeals (BOA). The BOA's decision overruled the decision of the Town's Planning Board to grant the Trust a permit to remove an existing structure in the shoreland zone and replace it with a new structure that included an addition. We agree with the court's finding that the Planning Board was required to initially consider the new structure's compliance with the Town's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (SZO) absent the proposed addition; we conclude also that the Planning Board applied the wrong section of the SZO in considering the Trust's permit application. For that reason, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions that the court order the Planning Board to reconsider the application, applying the proper SZO provision.
[¶ 2] The facts are drawn from the administrative record before the Planning Board. See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(f). All parties agree that the Planning Board rendered “the operative decision of the municipality” to be reviewed on appeal because the SZO authorizes the BOA to act only in an appellate capacity, which it did in this case. See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088 (quotation marks omitted); Owls Head, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1.6(B)(2) (March 4, 2013); Owls Head, Me., Shoreland Zoning Ordinance § 16(H)(1) (March 4, 2013).
[¶ 3] On March 31, 2013, Douglas Johnson, as trustee of the Osprey Family Trust (hereinafter Johnson), filed an application for a building permit concerning his shorefront property in Owls Head. Johnson sought to replace a dilapidated minesweeper deckhouse that had been placed on the property in the 1950s and used as a cottage with a new, larger single-family residence. The existing structure is located partly within the SZO's seventy-five-foot setback zone from the Atlantic Ocean. See Owls Head, Me., Shoreland Zoning Ordinance § 15(B) (March 4, 2013). In addition to being bounded by the ocean, the rear of Johnson's property contains a wetland of special significance that would necessitate a Maine Department of Environmental Protection permit before being used as a building site. 06–096 C.M.R. ch. 310, § 4, amended by order 2009–32 (effective Jan. 26, 2009). Johnson proposed to replace the existing structure with one that would still be located partly within the seventy-five-foot setback zone, but farther back from the ocean than the old structure, along with an addition lying completely outside of the seventy-five-foot setback zone and not encroaching on the wetland.
[¶ 5] The referenced SZO provision states, in part, that “[a] nonconforming structure may be relocated within the boundaries of the parcel on which the structure is located provided that the site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board. ” Owls Head, Me., Shoreland Zoning Ordinance § 12(C)(2) (March 4, 2013) (emphasis added).
[¶ 8] Johnson appealed and Delaney cross-appealed. We have considered the arguments made in the cross-appeal and find them to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we turn to our review of the Planning Board's decision to grant the permit. See Fitanides, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088.
[¶ 9] We review the Planning Board's approval of the permit directly “for error of law, abuse of discretion or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we interpret Owls Head's ordinances de novo. Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶ 16, 868 A.2d 161. “Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Although Johnson is the appellant here, Delaney bears the burden of persuasion on appeal because she seeks to vacate the Planning Board's underlying decision. Fitanides, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088.
Gensheimer, 2005 ME 22, ¶¶ 17–18, 868 A.2d 161 (alteration, citations, and quotation marks omitted).
[¶ 11] ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of Portland
...decision "for error of law, abuse of discretion or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record." Osprey Fam. Tr. v. Town of Owls Head , 2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114 (quotation marks omitted). "Substantial evidence exists if there is any competent evidence in the record to......
-
Friends of Lamoine v. Town of Lamoine
...See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(f) ; Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth , 2017 ME 177, ¶¶ 2, 11, 169 A.3d 396 ; Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head , 2016 ME 89, ¶ 2, 141 A.3d 1114.[¶3] In February 2017, MacQuinn filed two separate applications with the Planning Board, pursuant to the......
-
Holmes v. Town of Ogunquit
...finding of fact when it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114. "Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion," Id. (citation omit......
-
Bryant v. Town of Wiscasset
...errors of law, abuses of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head , 2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114. The Bryants bear the burden of persuasion because they seek to vacate the Planning Board's decision. ......