Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n

• Decision Date: 26 July 2022
• Docket Number: Docket: Yor-21-344
• Citation: 278 A.3d 1183,2022 ME 42
• Parties: Richard OUELLETTE v. SACO RIVER CORRIDOR COMMISSION
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

278 A.3d 1183

2022 ME 42

Richard OUELLETTE

v.SACO RIVER CORRIDOR COMMISSION

Docket: Yor-21-344

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: June 6, 2022

Decided: July 26, 2022

Gene R. Libby, Esq., and Tyler J. Smith, Esq. (orally), Libby O'Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC, Kennebunk, for appellant Richard Ouellette

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, Caleb E. Elwell, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), and Margaret A. Bensinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Saco River Corridor Commission

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.

JABAR, J.

[¶1] Richard Ouellette appeals from a decision of the Superior Court (York County, Douglas, J. ) affirming the decision of the Saco River Corridor Commission denying Ouellette's application to build a privacy fence along a portion of his property because such a fence would unreasonably despoil the scenic, rural, and open space character of the Saco River Corridor. Because the Commission's "scenic view" rule, 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, § 2(G)(3) (effective Jan. 30, 2006), neither conflicts with the Saco River Corridor Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 951 - 969 (2022), nor is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and because the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The following facts are drawn from the Commission's findings, which are supported by competent record evidence. See Sultan Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Prot. , 2022 ME 21, ¶ 2, 272 A.3d 296. Richard Ouellette owns property on the Saco River on Pool Street in Biddeford. The property is located within the Limited Residential District of the Saco River Corridor as defined by 38 M.R.S. § 957-B. The property abuts 11 and 13 Marblehead Lane. If there are no obstructions, the Saco River is visible from the Marblehead Lane properties when looking over the Pool Street property during certain seasons.

[¶3] In June 2020, it came to the Commission's attention that Ouellette had replaced an existing 264-foot-long, 5-foot-tall, vinyl post-and-rail fence with a 6- to 7-foot-tall privacy fence, without obtaining a permit from the Commission. Ouellette installed this fence to block his view of his neighbor's backyard. After the Commission contacted Ouellette about the fence, he applied for an after-the-fact permit for the project. This initial application proposed keeping the entire fence intact. The neighbors at 11 and 13 Marblehead Lane submitted comments that their views of the Saco River were obstructed by the new fence in a way that they were not by the previous fence and submitted photographic evidence supporting the comments. Commission staff visited the site on August 14, 2020, and two commissioners visited the site on August 24, 2020. The Commission considered the application at their August 26, 2020, meeting. By a vote of 7-3, the Commission denied the application, determining that, under the standards set forth in 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, § 2(G), the fence unreasonably obstructed the views of the river from abutting properties. The Commission issued a written decision on September 2, 2020.

[¶4] Ouellette initially appealed this decision but withdrew his appeal after he reapplied for the permit on September 16, 2020. The new application proposed replacing the six solid panels nearest to the river with the original split-rail fence. On September 30, 2020, commissioners visited the site again. The abutting landowners again submitted comments in opposition to the application. During its October 28, 2020, meeting, the Commission denied the application by a vote of 10-3 and found that the proposed privacy fence "would unreasonably involve factors enumerated in Section 959-A.1.A. through K of the Act INCLUDING: G. Despoliation of the scenic, rural, and open space character of the corridor" by unreasonably obstructing the views of the river from abutting properties. The Commission issued its written decision, with findings, on November 4, 2020.

[¶5] On November 27, 2020, Ouellette requested that the Commission reconsider the application, pursuant to 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 101, § 5 (effective Jan. 30, 2006). The neighbors, as they did with the application, filed documents opposing the request for reconsideration. The Commission heard the request for reconsideration at its January 4, 2021, meeting. By a vote of 8-6 the Commission rejected the request. A commissioner then proposed replacing ten panels with the original split-rail fence, but this proposal failed to carry because the Commission voted 7-7. The Commission issued its decision with findings on January 13, 2021. On February 3, 2021, Ouellette timely appealed from the Commission's decision to the Superior Court.¹ See M.R. Civ. P. 80C(b) ; 5 M.R.S. § 11002(3) (2022).

[¶6] Following argument on August 17, 2021, the Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision on October 15, 2021. Ouellette timely appeals. See 5 M.R.S. § 11008(1) (2022).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶7] On appeal, Ouellette contends that the Commission's "scenic view" rule conflicts with the Saco River Corridor Act, that the rule is unconstitutionally vague, and that the Commission's decision to deny the permit was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

A. The "Scenic View" Rule

1. Standard of Review

[¶8] "In an appeal from a Superior Court judgment on a Rule 80C petition, we review the underlying administrative agency decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." Maquoit Bay, LLC v. Dep't of Marine Res. , 2022 ME 19, ¶ 5, 271 A.3d 1183. We review a trial court's interpretation of statute de novo. SAD 3 Educ. Ass'n v. RSU 3 Bd. of Dirs. , 2018 ME 29, ¶ 14, 180 A.3d 125. When a statute's language is unambiguous, "we interpret the provisions according to their unambiguous meaning unless the result is illogical or absurd," and only if a statute is ambiguous do we "consider the statute's meaning in light of its legislative history and other indicia of legislative intent." Id. (quotation marks omitted).

2. The Saco River Corridor Act

[¶9] The Saco River Corridor Act establishes the Saco River Corridor and the Commission. The Legislature found "that [the Saco, Ossipee, and Little Ossipee Rivers] and their adjacent lands possess outstanding scenic and aesthetic qualities." 38 M.R.S. § 951. The purpose of the Act includes preserving the "scenic, rural and unspoiled character of the lands adjacent to these rivers." Id. The Act separates the corridor into three districts—the Resource Protection District, the Limited Residential District, and the General Development District. Id. § 957. Ouellette's property is in the Limited Residential District, which is defined as "lands within the corridor which may be suitable for development, but which are not necessary for the growth of areas of intensive development." Id. § 957-B(1). Uses that are allowed by permit include single-family residences and accessory structures. Id. § 957-B(3)(E). "Fences" are included in the Act's definition of "structure." Id. § 952(16).

[¶10] To receive a permit to construct a structure in the Limited Residential District, an applicant must show that a proposed use will not unreasonably cause any of eleven enumerated conditions. Id. § 959-A(1)(A)-(K). Paragraph (G) requires the applicant to prove that the proposed use will not involve an unreasonable "[d]espoliation of the scenic, rural and open space character of the corridor." The Commission, which is authorized to adopt additional standards for permitted uses, id . § 954-C(1), has promulgated rules that expand upon section 959-A(1)(G). One of these rules, the "scenic view" rule, requires applicants to show "[t]he proposed use will not unreasonably obstruct scenic views from neighboring properties or public roads." 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, § 2(G)(3).

[¶11] Ouellette argues that the "scenic view" rule conflicts with the Act because the Commission cannot deny a permit based on a proposed use's effect on an abutting landowner, categorically bans all fences in the corridor, and empowers the Commission to create de facto view easements.

a. Effect on Abutting Landowners

[¶12] The plain language of section 959-A(1)(G) of the act requires the Commission to determine whether a proposed use will involve "any unreasonable ... despoliation of the scenic, rural and open space character of the corridor." This requirement clearly extends to the lands adjacent to the river. See id. § 951 ("[I]t is the purpose of this chapter ... to preserve the scenic rural and unspoiled character of the lands adjacent to [the rivers constituting the corridor] ...."); id. § 953 ("The [Saco River Corridor] includes the lands adjacent to these rivers to a distance of 500 feet."). The rule promulgated in accordance with the statute provides that a use must not unreasonably obstruct scenic views from the road and neighboring properties or be highly visible from the water. 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, § 2(G)(3)-(4). The unambiguous language in section 2(G) does not conflict with the statute but instead provides the Commission with a consistent means of examining whether the use will involve an "unreasonable [d]espoliation of the scenic, rural and open space character of the corridor," 38 M.R.S. § 959-A(1)(G).

b. The Act Does Not Ban Fences

[¶13] Ouellette argues that the Commission's "scenic view" rule conflicts with the Act because it categorically bans the use of fences, a permitted use under the Act. See 38 M.R.S. §§ 952(2), (16), 957-B. However, the rule does not ban all fences, just those that unreasonably obstruct scenic views, 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, § 2(G)(3), which aligns with the statute. See 38 M.R.S. § 959-A(1)(G) (barring uses that unreasonably cause "[d]espoliation of the scenic ... character of the corridor"). "[W]hether a proposed activity will unreasonably interfere with an existing scenic or aesthetic use will necessarily depend on the specific circumstances of a...