Riverwatch, LLC v. City of Auburn
| Decision Date | 17 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action AP-08-06 |
| Parties | RIVERWATCH, LLC, Petitioner v. CITY OF AUBURN, Respondent |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Riverwatch, LLC's (Riverwatch) Rule 80B appeal from a decision of the City of Auburn Planning Board (the Board) approving on April 8, 2008 the applications for the Great Falls Plaza Subdivision.
Riverwatch owns a hotel abutting the property at issue in this dispute. The City of Auburn (the City) and two private organizations GFP Development Co. LLC (GFP) and the Mullaney Hospitality Group (Mullaney), applied for Board approval with the objective of constructing the Great Falls Plaza on property located in the Central Business District (CBD) zone of downtown Auburn. The community has identified the redevelopment of Auburn's downtown as a priority in its Comprehensive Plan and specific community planning initiatives, notably Auburn's Downtown Action Plan for Tomorrow.[1]
The proposed Great Falls Plaza project consists of a five-lot subdivision. Two lots were planned for initial development with a 100-room hotel with an 11,000 square-foot footprint and a four-level municipal parking garage with a capacity for approximately 330 vehicles. Three additional lots would be reserved for future development. The project includes construction of internal public and private roads, access points and other infrastructure improvements, and is estimated to have a construction cost of $ 17 million. Although the proposed hotel was a permitted use in the CBD it required site plan review and special exception approval due to its size of more than 5,000 square feet.[2]
On February 8, 2008, GFP submitted two applications to the Board. One application was an amendment to an existing subdivision approval granted on April 19, 2007 for joint applicants GFP and the City. The second application was for a site plan review and special exception permit, with three joint applicants, the City, GFP and Mullaney. The site plan and special exception application were for the development of a parking garage by the City and a hotel by the privately held GFP and Mullaney. After hearing and discussion on March 11, 2008, the Board tabled the site review plan and special exception applications until the following meeting in order to give the developer an opportunity to provide further information. The Board reconsidered the two applications on April 8, 2008.
At the April 8 hearing, a board member who had participated in the March 11, 2008 hearing recused himself due to a conflict in interest and two members who had not been present on March 11 attended and participated in the deliberations. The minutes of the March 11 meeting were neither approved nor made a matter of public record prior to the April 8 hearing. The Planning Board approved the applications on April 8 and issued separate written findings relating to the site plan and special exception approvals, dated April 14, 2008, and for the subdivision amendment approval.
After hearing, the amendment subdivision plan was approved under Section 7.3 of Chapter 29 of the Auburn ordinance and approval was granted in one, rather than two, hearings. The site review and special exception applications were approved under sections 3.69B.2a, 3.62B.l.g and 3.62B.2.1 and 1 of Chapter 29 of the ordinance.
Riverwatch contends that the Board violated applicable provisions of law, abused its discretion and violated procedural due process. Although Riverwatch raises numerous arguments,[3] the court's analysis consolidates those arguments that ultimately involve the same issue, and disregards assertions that lack merit and do not warrant discussion.[4] The issues to be discussed and determined include: (1) whether the Board improperly failed to hold both a preliminary and final hearing for a major subdivision application; (2) whether the Board waived certain requirements for site plan approval; and (3) whether it was improper for the Board, comprised of members who did not participate in the first hearing, to make a decision at the final hearing.
This court reviews a local board's decision for errors of law abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53, ¶6, 769 A.2d 172,175. Substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficient for a board to have reasonably found the facts as it did. Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973, 975 (Me. 1990). The burden of persuasion is on the party challenging a board's decision to show that the evidence compels a different result. Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916 (1996). The court must not substitute its judgment for that of a board on factual issues. Id. Further, a board's "decision is not wrong because the record is inconsistent or a different conclusion could be drawn from it." Id. However, if a board "fails to make sufficient and clear findings of fact and such findings are necessary for judicial review," this court must remand the matter back to the board for those findings. Comeau v. Town of Kittery, 2007 ME 76, ¶ 9, 926 A.2d 189, 192 (quoting Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135,¶ 30, 837 A.2d 148, 157). To the extent that an ordinance requires interpretation that is a question of law subject to de novo review. Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, 868 A.2d 161,166.
Riverwatch contends that the Board failed to hold both a preliminary and final hearing for a major subdivision application. However, the Board was not considering a "major subdivision application." The Record discloses that the application was for an amendment to approved subdivision plan. The still-valid approval was granted for a Major Subdivision on April 10, 2007. The Board had before it an "Amended Final Subdivision Plan," as reflected on the application blueprint and acted upon by the Board. Rather than designate it a minor subdivision, for which it was qualified under the ordinance, the Board chose to call the amendment a major subdivision, but clearly waive any perceived requirement for another public hearing or additional process. The Board actually went beyond the ordinance requirements throughout the process in order to maximize public input without unduly stalling a minor amendment.
With respect to plan revisions after approval, the ordinance provides that "[n]o changes, erasures, modifications, or revisions shall be made in any final plan after approval has been given by the Planning Board and endorsed in writing on the plan, unless the plan is first resubmitted and Planning Department staff approves any modifications." § 7.3(E)(3). The ordinance required only the approval of the City's Planning Department staff. The Planning Department staff and Board's choice to hold a hearing to ensure public review was discretionary.
In this case, the staff found that the amendments to the final plan could have been approved through a staff approval process by the Planning Department under section 7.3(E)(3) without any action on the part of the Planning Board. At the hearing, Eric Cousens, City Planner, quoted directly from the staff report, stating:
The ordinance also allows staff to review some changes to a subdivision. It was the opinion of the staff that the proposed changes could have been reviewed by staff; however given the City involvement as an applicant, co-applicant, and the public interest in the changes, it was deemed appropriate for the Planning Board to review the changes with the Board's public process.
Record 3, p. 19 lines 8-14.
At the hearing, the Board considered whether it could treat the amendment as a final plan and hold the final vote that evening. The staff advised the Board that if there were not any major requirements that the Board needs to see on a new revised plan, they could proceed with the application as a final approval. It was within the Board's discretion to make this determination. Thus, the Board was not required to hold both a preliminary and a final hearing.
The parties disagree as to whether the Board properly waived three requirements for site plan approval. First, the project does not satisfy the requirement of a CBD setback for the front yard of the hotel, yet the Board did not expressly state that it was waiving this requirement.[5] Second, Mullaney did not provide the required statement of financial capability to carry out the project, and the Board did not state that it was waiving this requirement.[6] Third, the City argues that the Board waived dimensional requirements for the loading zone, while the petitioner contends that the Board failed to grant a waiver, and even if it had, waiver was not permitted.[7] The City argues that the Board's findings and waivers were implicit and should be inferred based on the Board's decision and the surrounding circumstances. Riverwatch counters that express findings and waivers are necessary and the court should remand to the Board for factual findings on these issues.
This court acknowledges that the body of precedent concerning the need for administrative boards to issue written findings is admittedly contradictory and perhaps confusing.[8] However, it is evident in the more recent decisions from the Law Court that proper judicial review of an administrative body's decision cannot be accomplished when there are inadequate factual findings to consider. See e.g. Comeau v. Town of Kittery, 2007 ME 76, ¶¶12-13, 926 A.2d 189 192-93; Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶ 30, 837 A.2d 148, 157. The Law Court has specifically recognized that remand to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial