Foss v. Town of Bar Harbor

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 12, 2010
• Docket: HANap-09-6
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT HANCOCK, SSe CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP70~-~ 1<. Mc---HA N ­ ex 10-/20 I 0 KAROL A. FOSS

Plaintiff, I ~ I.

-' I.", .:....-. "-..1

TOWN OF BAR HARBOR,

Defendant.

ORDER ON M.R.CIV.P. 80B APPEAL

The matter before the Court is an appeal by the

Plaintiff, Karol A. Foss, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B, from

a decision rendered by the Defendant, Town of Bar Harbor

Board of Appeals, denying the Plaintiff's request for

permission to use her property, know as Anchorhold, for

vacation rentals. The Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)

denied her application. That decision was appealed to the

Bar Harbor Board of Appeals and it upheld the decision of

the CEO. This matter was argued to this Court on January

29, 2010.

LEGAL STANDARDS

When reviewing governmental action under M.R.

Civ. P. 80B, the Superior Court reviews the operative

decision of the municipality for ~abuse of discretion,

errors of law, or findings not supported by the substantial

1 evidence in the record." Camp v. Town of Shapleigh, 2008

ME 53, ~ 9, 943 A.2d 595, 598 (quoting McGhie v. Town of

Cutler, 2002 ME 62, ~ 5, 793 A.2d 504, 505). "Substantial

evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as

sufficient to support a conclusion." Toomey v. Town of

Frye Island, 2008 ME 44, ~ 12, 943 A.2d 563, 566 (quoting

Sproul v. Town of Boothbay Harbor, 2000 ME 30, ~ 8, 746

A.2d 368, 372). "That inconsistent conclusions can be'.

drawn from evidence does not mean that a finding is not

supported by substantial evidence." Id. The court does

"not make any findings other than those found explicitly or

implicitly by the Board" and does "not substitute [its]

judgment for that of the Board." Camp, 2008 ME 53, ~ 9,

943 A.2d at 598.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff purchased property "at 9 Harbor Lane in Bar

Harbor on October 14, 2008. That property (known as

Anchorhold) was owned previously by H & E Griffin

Corporation from August of 1996 to October 14, 2008.

Anchorhold was used by its corporate owner for vacation

rentals.

Under the Bar Harbor Land Use Ordinance (LUO),

Anchorhold was located in the Shoreland Limited Residential

2 District during the period of ownership by H & E Griffin

Corporation and its current owner, Plaintiff. Under the

LUO, until June 13, 2006, vacation rentals were allowed in

this District without regard to a ·property's tax status.

As of that date the Bar Harbor Ordinance was amended to

provide that in the Shoreland Limited Residential District

vacation rentals were only allowed for homestead exempt

property (LUO, Appendix C, Table of Permitted Uses).

Plaintiff did not and does not reside in the property

in question and is not and has not been a resident of Bar

Harbor from the time of her 2008 purchase of the property

to the present. Plaintiff's stat4s under the LUO with

respect to 109 Harbor Lane (Anchorhold) is that the

property is non-homestead exempt. Plaintiff sought a

vacation rental permit in her status as a non-exempt owner

under the LUO. The CEO for Bar Harbor denied that

requested permit.

DISCUSSION

On the one hand, with regard to the H & E Griffin

Corporation ownership of 9 Harbor Lane, Bar Harbor

(Anchorhold), the record supports the conclusion that H & E

Griffin Corporation during its ownership after 2006 was

non-exempt under the Maine Tax law (Record on Appeal,

hereinafter, RA pg. 7) and should not have received a

3 vacation rental permit. The property when owned by H & E

Griffin Corporation did not qualify as a 'homestead' 1 (i.e.

no where on the record is the corporation identified as a

cooperative housing corporation) and was therefore not

entitled to a homestead exemption when applying the legal

definition to the facts presented. This, however,

represents a passing observation since the Bar Harbor CEO

did grant the corporation a vacation rental permit. (RA

pgs. 2-3)

The reality is that Bar Harbor had recognized 9 Harbor

Lane as being exempt homestead property (and thereby

conforming with the vacation rental use requirements of the

Ordinance) and had given H & E Griffin Corporation approval

for vacation rental in November of 2006 (RA pg. 2). In

October of 2006, Constance Brush 2 had filed a Vacation

Rental License Application as owner at 9 Harbor Lane, Bar

Harbor, checked the homestead exemption list, and was

uHomestead U means any residential property, including cooperative property, in this State assessed as real property owned by an applicant or·held in a revocable living trust for the benefit of the applicant and occupies by the applicant as the applicant's permanent residence or owned by a cooperative housing corporation and occupied as a permanent residence by a resident who is qualifying shareholder. A uhomestead u does not include any reala. property used solely for commercial purposes. 36 M.R.S.A. § 681(2). 2 Constance Brush is identified in the deed from H & E Griffin Corporation as its Treasurer on the October 14, 2008 deed to Plaintiff Foss. The Corporation's address is identified as of 9 Harbor Lane, Bar Harbor. (RA pg. 4).

4 allowed a vacation rental permit on homestead exemption

property (RA, pgs. 1-2). Although the application has on it

next to "owner", the handwritten note of "H. & E Griffin

Corp." it is not disputed that Bar Harbor Office staff made

this entry after the approval of this application and the

permit was granted to the corporation (RA, pg. 3).

At a fundamental level, it appears that Bar Harbor

made an error in judgment in characterizing the appropriate

use of the Anchorhold property as ·homestead exempt while it

was owned by H & E Griffin Corporation after the effective

date of the June 13, 2006 amendment (RA, pg. 7). That is,

as of October 13, 2008, 9 Harbor Lane was permitted as

homestead exempt property entitled to a vacation rental

permit.

If the status of 9 Harbor Lane as of October 13, 2008,

was exempt homestead property and the holder of a vacation

rental permit, how does that stat~s impact on Plaintiff

Foss on October 14, 2008, as purchaser under the Bar Harbor

Land Use Ordinance? Clearly under the Ordinance, Foss'

property during her ownership was non-exempt homestead

property, which under Ordinance at Appendix C, Tables of

Permitted Uses, was not entitled to vacation rentals,

absent some provision in the Ordinance authorizing the

same. To the extent that 9 Harbor Lane (Anchorhold) had

5 conformed to the Ordinance requirement of being homestead

exempt property when owned by H & E Griffin Corporation

(i.e. vacation rental permit issued), it became non­

conforming (i.e. non homestead exempt) when acquired by

Plaintiff/Appellant Foss. Bar Harbor argues that this

represents a change of use, which without more is correct . . Direction is provided by reference to the Bar Harbor

Ordinance in dealing with property whose status was in

transition from conforming to nonconforming. Section 125-54

of the Ordinance deals with nonconforming uses of land and

at sub-section (G)(l) deals in particular with

nonconforming vacation rentals. In the case of 'vacation

rentals,' the only way they could exist in the Shore land

Limited Residential district is if status of the owner

after 2006 was that of homestead exempt (having achieved

that status by complying with the Ordinance requirements

for that district) and they could not exist if the status

was homestead non-exempt - unless the Ordinance

specifically permitted it.

The Ordinance directs, with respect to nonconforming

uses of property, that a nonconforming vacation rental

applicant (i.e. non exempt tax status) had to present

evidence of continuation of the rental use in terms of

verification that the unit was rented at least 14 days

6 during the prior 12 month period or for new nonconforming

vacation rentals, proof the unit was rented for at least 14

days for each twelve-month period after November 15, 2006.

LUO § 125-54(G)(1).

The April 28 th , 2009 denial by the Appeals Board was

based on 9 Harbor Lane becoming a non-conforming use when

sold to Plaintiff Foss. The Board found the property use

was conforming at the time of the 2006 LUO amendment.

At paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of its April 28, 2009,

decision, the Board of Appeals found that the property was

owned and occupied by a full time resident of Bar Harbor,

findings that are without any support on the record when

viewed in the context of the homestead requirements of the

Ordinance. These erroneous findings reflect confusion on

the part of the Board of Appeals in terms of the

application of the Bar Harbor LUO to these facts. The

pertinent question would appear to be how the Ordinance

deals with the transition between conforming and

nonconforming uses as property ownership changes hands.

Clearly Plaintiff is seeking to continue vacation

rental use by her as a non resident (i.e. non-exempt

homestead use). The Ordinance with regard to non­

conforming uses provides at Section 125-54 (G)(l) that one

seeking a nonconforming vacation rental use needs to

7 demonstrate that there is evidence of continuation of the

rental use in terms of verification that the unit was

rented at least 14 days during the prior 12 month period or

for new nonconforming vacation rentals, proof the unit was

rented for at least 14 days for each twelve-month period

after November 15, 2006. LUO § 125-54(G)(1). The Town

points to Section 125-53 of the General Policies of the

Ordinance, which provides at (E) that once a lot is

"converted" to conformity, the 'use' cannot revert to

nonconformity.

In speaking of interpreting ~n Ordinance, the Law

Court has advised that "The ordinance is interpreted by

examining the plain meaning of the language." Camp, 2008 ME

53, , 10, 943 A.2d at 598 (citation omitted). The "terms or

expressions in an ordinance are to be construed reasonably

with regard to both the objectives sought to be obtained

and the general structure of the ordinance as a whole." Id.

Applying these directions to the Bar Harbor Ordinance, it

is difficult to give § 125-53 meaning in terms of

reasonable construction and the objectives sought by that

section. Clearly 9 Harbor Lane was in 'conformity' with

regard to vacation rentals being authorized (1) in June of

2006 when the Ordinance was amended and (2) when the Bar . Harbor CEO approved it in November of 2006, for vacation

8 rentals (RA pg. 2). If conformity means 'harmony' and

'agreement' (Webster's New World Dictionary, Second

Edtiion, 1978), then November of 2006 (approval of

Anchorhold vacation rental permit) would seem to be a

reference date. The Foss property (as of October of 2008)

did not cease to be in 'conformity' because the Ordinance

at § 125-54 kept it in 'conformity' IF the new owner did

what § 125-54 (G)(l) required. Bar Harbor argues that the

General principles found in § 125~53 control with the

result that specific reference to nonconformity at § 125-54

becomes without meaning. The Court is not prepared to

interpret the Ordinance to the effect that § 125-54(G) is

without meaning. As this Court i~terprets § 125-54(G)

relying on the plain meaning of the words of the Ordinance

and reasonable interpretation, Section 125-54 (G) exists to

'allow' the permitted nonconforming use of vacation rentals

for non-homestead-exception properties (i.e. Anchorhold) in

districts which do not allow the use. (See Land Use Exhibit

C, Table of Permitted Uses - for non homestead vacation

properties in the Shoreland Residential District). This

Court interprets the Ordinance to require the Town to

allow/permit the vacation rental property if the non­

homestead exempt owner provides certain required

information.

9 The Court finds that Findings 15 and 16 are the core

of the Board of Appeals decision. Finding 15 concludes

that the Plaintiff Foss has changed the 'use' of the

property to non-conforming because the property became non­

homestead property and, relying on § 125-53(E), finds that

the use cannot be changed from conforming to nonconforming.

This Court does not find application of the terms of the

Ordinance § 125-54(G) changes the status 6f the Foss

ownership to "conforming." It remains nonconforming but

under limited circumstances is allowed to continue to have

vacation rentals as a continuing use in conformity with the

district by an owner whose status is non conforming in that

Foss is non-homestead exempt.

Finding 16 concludes that § ~25-54(G) does not apply

because "the use of the property was not non-conforming at

the time of the adoption of the vacation rental ordinance

and the property has never been registered as non-homestead

vacation rental property." Put another way to avoid the

double negative, at the time of the adoption of the

Ordinance amendment, the vacation rental use was conforming

with the Ordinance, but was never registered as non­

homestead vacation rental property. While this is true, it

ignores the fact that the property was registered as

homestead exempt vacation property with that status

10 confirmed by Bar Harbor. (RA pgs. 1-3). The only finding

that is supported by the Record is that the prior owner

registered the property consisten~ with Chapter 190 of the

Ordinance and that registration was accepted and approved

by the Town as a conforming use. Id. It is the facts missing from this finding coupled with the lack of analysis

of the compliance of the applican~ with § 125-54, that

makes Finding #16 inadequate as a matter of law.

It is clear from the Record that Foss filed her

vacation rental application on Feb. 17, 2009 (RA pg. 9) and

that she was required to verify rental for at least 14 days

over the prior 12 months 3 as a condition to getting a

vacation rental permit under Ordinance § 125-54(G)(1).

This Court sets aside Finding #16 as not being

supported by substantial evidence on the record and as

reflecting an error of law in terms of applying the Bar

Harbor Ordinance to the facts of this case.

The matter is REMANDED to the Board of Appeals to

determine if the Plaintiff/Appellant at the time of her

application has complied with § 125-54 (G)(l) of the LUO

and if the Plaintiff has complied, the Board of Appeals is

directed to grant Plaintiff's appeal and issue her a

3 That assumes that the sought alter vacation rental use is a continuation of the prior use and not a 'new' nonconforming vacation rental use.

11 vacation rental permit consistent with the Bar Harbor

Ordinance.

The Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the Town of Bar

Harbor issuing a vacation rental permit to the prior owner

and that the Town will continue to apply its Ordinance to

the facts created by the Town of Bar Harbor in issuing that

permit to the prior owner as opposed to using this process

to correct a prior administrative _error.

Appeal sustained and matter remanded to the Bar Harbor

Board of Appeals for action consistent with this opinion.

At the direction of the Court, this Order shall be

incorporated into the docket by reference. M.R.Civ.P.

79(a).

Dated: February 12, 2010

Kevin M. Cuddy . Justice, Superior

12 Date Filed 5-14-09 Hancock Docket No. _A_P-'---O_9_-_6 _ County

Action 80B appeal

KAROL A. FOSS Ys. TOWN OF BAR HARBOR

Plaintiff s Attorney Defendant's Attorney William B. Devoe, Esq. Michael A. Hodgins, Esq. P.O. Box 1210 BERNSTEIN SHUR Bangor, ME 04402-1210 P.O. Box 5057 Augusta, ME 04332-5057

Date of Entry

5-14-09 Complaint for Review of Governmental Action Pursuant to Rule 80B with Combined Independent Action, dated 5-13-09, with Exhibits A-C, received and filed. 5-14-09 Pltf's Motion for Stay, dated 5-13-09, with proposed order, received and filed. 5-14-09 Notice and Briefing Schedule sent to Atty Devoe.

5-22-09 Pltf's Motion to Specify the Future Course of Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 80B, dated 5-21-09, with proposed order, received and filed. 5-28-09 (Cuddy, J. Teleconference held with counsel regarding pending motions and status of case. After hearing, order to issue. 5-28-09 Order, dated 5-28-09, entered. (Cuddy, J. Discussed status of matter, possible need for TRO and hearing in Caribou. Further phone conference set for 6/2 at 8:15 in Caribou .. 5-28-09 Copies of order sent to attys of record. 5-29-09 Consent Order, dated 5-29-09, received and entered. (Cuddy, J. I it is hereby ordered as follows: i 1. Pltf may continue to rent the property located at 9 Harbor Lane in Bar Harbor, also known as "Anchorhold", without prejudice to either party's legal position in the context of the appeal through 12-31-09, or until I such time as the court issues its decision on pltf's appeal. 2. The property's grandfathered status, if any,with respect to non­ homestead exemption vacation rentals, will not be affected by the pendency of the appeal and both parties are free to argue the merits of that issue to t=-:: court. 3. As a result of this order the pltf's motions for stay and to specify the f'lture course of proceedings are hereby moot. 14. 1 The pltf's brief shall be filed within 40 days of the date of this order. 15. The dft's brief shall be filed within 30 days after service of the