Leonard v. Town of Kittery

Opinion

S T M E OF PIAING SUPERlOR COURT ClVlL ACTION

YOI<I<,ss. 130C'T<E'l' N O . A P-04-068

MICHAEL, LEONARD and LOPXdLl,ru'EIVGRT,"iil"\JGTGN,

'TOWN 01; KITTERL' and KTTTERY PORT AU'I'L IORTTY,

This case comes before ihe Court on blicl~ael1,eonard's 8OB'dppeal of the Town of

Kittery's denial of a request to add a six-loot by hivent-y-foot finger float to an existing

dock, ramp, nnd float system. Follocvlng l~ciar~ng, llle Town's decision is Afftrmcd.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2000, Mr. Leot~ardpetitioned thc l<~tteryPort ~ u t h o l - i t y(I<PA) for a permit to construct a hfty-five foot L,-shaped co~nmerclalfloat in the waters referred to a s Hack

Channel. Flis stated purpose for the floal \\/as to dock a fcvty-foot boat of a friend and

o n J ~ l l6,

another smaller hoat. After h\io p ~ b l i clil('i't111g~7 p 'lOO0, and R l l g l t s l 3, 2000,the

k:P-4 ~ ~ ~ 7 r o w/ \t/ ivt - i i ecxl?!-c!' s per!n:t ! m!!::! tcc from th? rr.~r!!:~gs:nd:cnte t!:,:t t!:?

board was cc~)ncerned abni~l.the lenglil ot the iI(-);11- and pal-ltiilg spaces on land.

A ~ ~ I I O L L LI~c!rc ~ I I X,VC:S ~ I i ~ < : i i ~ ~ i , jafli~ o i i li'v'11. I ,c:t (.I (lo(,i\.i~~!;

) I I ~ I i w o l ~ o a i sat I i i , ~ii(,,ai, i l ~ e

T<PA. did not coi~ditionthe approval 011 oiilj7 t\:\io l ~ o tsa L7eiiig docl<cd a t thc floa t. Sincc

that: time, Wir. I . r o l ~ i l r - c t[ \ a s ;~Ilo~vE:d 1 : s a!- !]is f!ont.

I I t i~) f i \ : t ? 1 ~ ~ ~t!, ~ dncl;

111 2004, blr. Leonard again peti tio~icldkhe T<r'il I-oadd on a six-foot by twenty-foot

finger float on t-lie inside of tlie L-shalx>ililoat. F--iissbated purpose for doing so is to

increase the safety at his float by having anot-her docking clption c-le-pending011 currents

and winds. The minutes from the meetings ilidical-e that the I<I1A was concerned that

there were now five boats docking at tlie font. '['he board members noted tliat the

current use of the float has evolved and is I-lotwhat mias PI-eseniedto [he l)c-)arilfor tile

origlnal float ii-I21)1)0.Siiine iii-the bi,;lu i r ~ l r r ~ i ~ itvi5r.e ~er;~ Illat i ' l ~ t t2001 of ille o/,i!~ic~~r-~

perinit was condj tioned 817 Mr. I,eol;arci i l ~ i ~ k i ~t~vi-, i i ; boats oii his float.

On Aug~ist12, 2004, the lTPA dcnictl tlic pei-mit because it found that the proposed

finger float w o ~ ~ caLrse ld an addikional safely hazard in trying to nianellver in tliat area

and tlie fact that the current application sho~vedfive boats .r.v22en tlie board had been

given the impression tliat t-he float was l-o be r.lsed for t\.4,7ol?c~ats. The T<?A noted tliat the

findings were supported by testirnol~yof a nciglibor that the vvaters in this area are

difficult and dangerous to navigate, and opinions of h ~ eboard mernbel-s to the same

effect.

On August 16, 2004, Mr. Leonard fi lixi a mol-ion for reconsjderation. Mr. Leonard

was represented by A t t o r ~ ~ cT,ibby y at tblic Iic~aringon recolisidcrat-ion. Attorney Libby

asked ii tile finger pier v\rould affect sclll.:y. Clhail-inan 1-T2!! r!.sl,onded tliat tlie hazard

lies w i t h it?e:<pcrienccd boat-el-::, and t:11;,1- ;; :;ix -f:i~;t- j;ic!r zc,~ildplin,-li n I;nle i l i n boat

having navigational prn1,lems. '].'heol-lit:!. hi;a~-rlmc:mboi-:; opincd t-h;:t tlic ~vater.;wcrc

rough i n that channel and that tlie six-foo~iinget- iloni, wou[d create congeslinn ~naliing

naviga tiou difficult-. I-iowe-ver, Chai I - I ~ ; \ I I l iall acltno\.vlecigeil t-hat bile 1<1'A does not ? 3

regulate the number of boats doi.l;cd a I i i i i i ~ l . ; piel.. Ilie i.eqr_~est lul- r.c:.~olisidtlt-ati(~~i was

denicd on Scpteinhcr 8, 2004. 'l'hirty d a y s Inter, on November- 10, 7004,Mr. Leonal-d

filed this 8OU appeal in tlie Supci-ior Cour.t.

h4r. Txonarcl argues tlia t the KPA's finclings are 1) unsupported by substantial

evidetice in tlie record; 2) inconsis tent \vi t.11 tlie I<i ttery C(>1.1i~1l-ellei1sive 1'1a11; and 3)

5 1002.

inconsistent 147itl1 tl.ie requirements of 38 F>,/I.R.S.A.

DISCUSSION

- i'l2e Superior Cor~rtreviews the iindings of the KiLtery Port ~ u t h o r i t y"for an

abuse of discretion, error of iavv, 01- finiiilij;~1.111~~1l~l)ol-ted by subst-al~tiaievidence i i the ~

i'eCOi-d. I/ i i I:~ijiiioiiii', 20:F1 h4 ll 61, l'7, 769 A.26 2465, 869. AS Ll~epsi-5-

1 l.l~ei.izG. 7 ' ~ ~ i i of

11

.,that

-,to overturn thc KPAfs decision, P i t I-. I,e(~:na;-d!]as diz b1.1rden of cstablisliing secking

E1i:nick zl. T07071 of A/lcchi~~lir the evidence coinpels a contrary concl~l:r;io~i. Fnlls, 673 A.2d

1348, I349 (Me. 1996).

Mr. Leonard fjrst contends that tlic I<PA rclieti on an improper factor, die number

of boats on the float. Secoi2d, Mr. Leori;?rd cc>titknds tl?at there is no evidencc jn the

wind blowii~gwith ebb tide would record to sr~pporta finding that a norlrli~17r~l-erly

affect tlie safety of the proposed finger fli-rat.' Mr. T,eona~-dfurther argues that the

ordinance does not contain provisions, r ~ ~ l e(31-

s , regulations that allow the KPA to deny

r

permits solely for safety concerns. 1hus, Ix2ca~1se

7

tlie safety standards LI tilized were not

articulated, the I<PArs ac:tions cons ti h~l-c an ~112cnns ti lu tional d c l c g a t i o ~of~ leg is1 ative

autliority in violation of t~lir?d r ~ cpt-occq c l a t ~ s e .S w I(nv7lklr 71. T o 7 v ~ r~,1f C p o ~ e l o 7 r l , l2002 ,

. .

h/ll< 1Ot1, '1 l;', ?h2 !!.l!~i: I E : $ , .I %>I. 1 ,:::;!I:,! P.'! :-, ! , C ? S I ~ Z:I~rl;i.Ic;S ~ t ! i>!~

'i'','!.!'.! ~FC~SIGII!;

violated tlie Kittery C ' n r n l ~ r e l i e i i sI1.I.;1!i ;\nd I17,. ic:i t t-cry I',a~irlilsci ijevelopmen t (.'ode,

which encourag-e building more ~lvliarlagcin Back Cliai~nelbecarise it is considered

"safe."

dial- the 2004 c!:.;:l~l \.tras !~z:;:,d :-int l ~ csafety of thct fi 1igc.r float 'l'he 'l'own cc~~~tei?ds

1 'l'he I<ittt.ry Compri-11-iensivr.iirIisiv1'1311 c~t;-ililisI~c!~ II-ial Il-ie p~.iv;iili~lg ~vil-iilsi n [lie I 3 ~ ~Cha111icI li area Lend to bc from the north a n d norlheast during Liw \vi~~Lcr. anit 11-olnLlle s u l ~ [ I ~ \ v ei is~[: l . i ~[lie ig s~~llliller.

alone. It n~aintainsthat the record s ~ ~ p p o ~the - t s1<PA's finding. The Town argties that

the l a w in Maine is established that pe!.sonal knotvledge of a board meinber, when

competent, inay be considered by meml,c~-soi t l ~ ehoard ~ w l ~reacliing ei~ a decision. See

Lippofh v. Zo-ni7.ig Board of Apj~eflls,City. ot'So. L'nrtlirrr~i, 31 1 A.2d 552, 557 (Me. 1973).

.

The I<PA denied the pernii t after ii tiding that thc proposed finger float would

cause an additioliai safety hazard il-1 trying tii ilianeuver in h a t area with a

n o r t h ~ ~ e s t e r v~ii~id ly ~ i r i t l i he i : l i l , ti cle. A1 kii~~,i~;h bli)~~lii?g Mi-. 12~:oi-iar*~:l al.gt.les tlmi

KPA docs not have tlie explicit aud~ori:;.. tn cc;nsidzr safety, thi. f a d that it is stakitarily

bound to colisider whcther the proyo:;cd co~islr~~ct~ion vvotild obstruct navigatiori or

injure the rights of others necessarily ilivolves an evaluatjoi~of safeLy concerns. 38

M.R.S.A. 51022. 'I'he KPA properly considered safety as a factor.

VVliilc it would be error Lo deli:/ kl~ispctrmi! on die basis that tlie 2001 permit

limited doclting to only two boa ls, it is a ppl-opri a te for the hoard to consider the actual,

present usage of this facility when evaluating safety issires as Llwy rela1-e to tlie pe~iding

permit application.

The real inquiry here is whether the recol-d supports a finding that tlie proposed

finger float will, in fact, advcrscly affcrt :;afety, ijhsl-rt.~ctnavigation or create a risk of

Ilitl I<PA.'s G~idii~gs

injury to the rights of others, 38 M.17.S.A. 51(!2:?., a n t i \~illell~c-!r of fact

1 1 1 c ! v 1 :1 ; 1 : 1 ! 2 ! l l !I;~ iiiy v~s\/L~, L/i%:ifa?'?

both close questions.

The record consisl-s of thP clocc~mctllar)/and p l i ~ ~ t o g r a pevidence l~i~ suL~ruiLted,

the testimony of witnesses and tilct l:)i,:i.son;-~i icno~~icdgco

of the Loarc1 mcrnt~ers

t:hen~selvesas arl-ii-~[late~l a t heari I I ~ .! !.Ic.: I<[' ? L (:val ~1'1tcJ(his < > i / i c . I t : i . ~ c - ~ a 11c.l C(~ILC~LLC.[VJ 7 7

that the propc~salcreated unacceptable safcky co1iceriis. A revi c ~ oi v tlie record docs not

corn pel a con traqr I-esult.

The KPA's findings of fact are niol-e p r ~ b l ~ n i a t i cA. local board must do more

than merely stale 11 c o n c l ~ ~ s l oin1 ~ni; L I S sl,jle ~ 1110 bas~c

1'1cls upon ~vli~cli

its conclusions

are based. flere, the I<PA articulates sc\l,>ii1 acts 11po1i~vliic11 ~ t conclusion s I S based:

A. This area is considered Urlsafe lor boals trying to doclc due to strong NW'ly winds and strong currents.

R. D ~ i eto the congested arecl 111~' tloat :vould create an unsafe navigalional sys Lein .

D. Sect. VIIT (Port Authfirity K11l~:s)

\/t'!ic:-r~the requirements of these klles and liegulabons are in conflict ~ v i ~other li laws or rules, the more restrictive, or that imposing the higher standc)rd,shall govern

E. Testimony given by abutler 1' s 1-0 ~ l ~ i n g e r oarea ~ r s and confir~nedby 1-Iarbor Master.

F. Float system approved origi~i~illy as a wallcway to p u t float oul to deeper water for fisliing bmt.

G. Comprehensive f-larhor Plan rc~fcrenccivas mostly from the old Plan of 1989.

Of these, "C", "DUand "G" are es\c.ntially conc~lusory, C states: "Testimony /I 'I/

and how does it bear on the pending from board members in 2001." What testi~nor~y,

application? "D" refers to Sect. V111, POI-L / \ t i llioi-i~y It111c.s req~liringthat when 111ese

rules conflict witli ot-her 1 and use rc.8111 , I tions, 111cI-riost resb-iclive apply. Are thcre

~ r ( ~ "C;" refer? to the lsstte ol conflicting rtrlcs in 1111s CL?SC; 11~1iicli~ I I ~ ~( Y\ ~ (al)l?li(ld?

Was this accurat-e, if so, were thcre any n~nict.iaIdif'terencc:; witli tlie current p~aii? li

tllese were tlw only tinclings made by 1110 l<l'r\, I \,vo~~ltl rrmai~dthe C ~ S Cto [lie T<PA.

-1-lowevcr, -

findings "A", "B","I:"

;Irlcl "I;" arc nu 111tlmlljr adecluate to perm lt

judicial rcvic~v. finclings relaling i < j ancl /:~oLznli.all~l ~\/e~.-i:ijl~geslion danget-c;t~s

hazards to navigation arc. supported by the. tcstilnony of a n nl)ulter, the 1-'larbor Master

and the genernl knowledge of the h o a t ~ in~enlbel-s.It 1s not for the reviewing court to

second-guess these judgmen 1s.

I realize that local boards rely on vol~~nlccl-s 1vho dedic'lte long hours to the often

thankless task of applying complicated ordinances in disputed cases. However, it is

now clear that our Supreme Court wrll ~ n s l s to n more thorougi~f~nciingsof fact at the

local administralive level. ideally, ml~~iicipalities wor~lcimake iegai cormsel available to

volilliteei. boards to assist thein i i ~this i < i ~ l < l.i i tlie I ~ i ri~i-1, ~ g t!ii~~ f i i i l i likely l be r i a - e

efficient and less expensive for all involvc~d. T!ot~,iever,in the absence of this kind of

assistance, the boards themselves 1n1~ s 1,ll-ivc l to provide delailed and comprehensive

findings of fact or face thc prospect of €1-c(lucntremands.

The entry will be as follows:

Plaintiffs' Rule 80B appedl is Den~odancl the decision of thc T<itfcry Port Autl~orityis Affirmed.

Dated: Januaryrq, 2006

G. ~ r d i u Brennan

r

PLAINTIFF:

Trrstice, Srlperior Court Gene L i b b y , E s q . VERRILL AND DANA PO B o x 1 4 7 K e n n e b u n k Me 0 4 0 4 3

DEFENDANTS: Duncan M c E a c h e r n , Esq. MCEACHERN AND THORNHILL PO B o x 3 6 0 K i t t e r y Me 03904