Morrills Corner, LLC v. City of Portland

Maine Superior

Morrills Corner, LLC v. City of Portland

Superior Court of Maine·Decided August 1, 2007·No. CUMap-06-042·Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP06-042

}-::f\ : -

A (r

) ( " _ I :-)'. ' /

MORRILLS CORNER, LLC

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND RECEI\JED Defendant

This matter comes before the Court on Morrills Comer, LLC's 80B appeal of administrative action taken by the City of Portland.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Morrills Comer, LLC ("Morrills Corner") is a Delaware limited

liability company that was formed for the purpose of handling a development project in Portland, Maine. To initiate the project, Packard Development, LLC, Morrills Corner's predecessor in interest, entered into a Conditional Zone Agreement ("CZA") with Defendant City of Portland ("the City") in 2004, which was revised in May 2005. 1 The CZA was intended to govern development of twenty acres of land in the vicinity of 33 Allen Avenue in Portland, to be called Morrill's Crossing, due to the unusual nature of the project.

According to the CZA, the project must comply with and be subject to the City's Land Use Code. The project consists of a redevelopment of apartments and townhouses and adds more residential units, a grocery store, walking trails,

1 The May 2005 version is recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds at Deed Book 23341, Page 114.

a playing field, and a boxing/ health club facility. The CZA incorporated several exhibits, including Exhibit B, a site plan drawing, and Exhibit D, architectural renderings of the proposed development. Also, Paragraph 13 of the CZA states that the agreement is subject to restrictions imposed by the City Council.

As required by the CZA, Morrills Corner submitted an application for site plan and subdivision approval in July 2005. These applications were supported by traffic and parking studies, and notice of the project was provided to residents in the neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 15, 2005 to discuss the project. The Community Development Committee ("CDC"), a subset of the City Council, also participated in numerous workshops and evaluations of the project. The full City Council extensively discussed the project and analyzed the site plan that was incorporated into the CZA.

In October 2005, the City's zoning administrator, Marge Schmuckal, issued an opinion that the site plan complied with zoning regulations. The dimensions on Exhibit B initially had been listed as 4,000 square feet for the existing boxing facility, with an expansion of approximately 10,000 square feet. No mention of the number of stories was made on Exhibit B, although the number of stories was listed for other buildings on the plan.

The administrator issued a revised opinion in January 2006, again stating that the project complied with zoning regulations, including setbacks, permitted uses, and the height limit. But, she noted that consistency with the CZA remained at issue and would have to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Specifically, she noted that CZA paragraph 3 requires that the development occur "substantially in accordance with the Site Plan shown on Exhibit B." The

CZA provides that it may allow minor deviations and that each phase of development remains subject to site plan review.

In February 2006, Morrills Corner submitted a revised site plan, reducing the footprint to 14,000 square feet and showing a single-story building. By June 2006, however, another revised plan was submitted, depicting a three-story, 42,484 square foot building due to the terms of Morrills Corner's lease. The new plan listed a ground floor area of 15,090 square feet, a second floor area of 11,922 square feet, and a third floor area of 15,462 square feet.

The Planning Board (lithe Board") held a public hearing on July 11, 2006, after which it determined, by a vote of 6-0, that the application complied with the CZA. The Board also granted subdivision and site plan approval, subject to a condition that the building could not exceed 14,000 total square feet. It also stated that it would have to review and approve the amended plan incorporating the reduction in size. The Board issued its findings and conclusions to that effect on August 3,2006. As the condition of approval would become final and binding absent an appeal, Morrills Corner filed this 80B appeal, solely contesting the condition limiting development to 14,000 square feet. It argues that the imposition of this condition constituted an error of law and/ or abuse of discretion because the City misinterpreted the CZA. The City contends that the Board properly imposed that condition.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review.

Review of board findings is "for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." O'Toole v. City of Portland, 2004 ME 130, <JI 8,865 A.2d 555,558. A municipal board's interpretation

of a zoning ordinance, however, is a legal question entitled to de novo review. Lewis v. Town of Rockport, 2005 ME 44, <]I II, 870 A.2d 107, 110. The issues presented by this appeal are whether the Board committed legal error when it limited the size of the boxing facility, and whether that condition was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

2. Did the City Err By Adding a Condition to Morrills Corner's Approval?

A threshold matter is the sufficiency of the Board's findings. Morrills Comer argues that the Board's conclusions of law and findings of fact are insufficient because it inadequately explained its rationale for imposing the condition. Morrills Corner maintains that it is unclear whether the Board added the condition because the plan was incompatible with the CZA or the ordinance, or for other reasons. The City contends that there was ample discussion on the record to illuminate the Board's reasoning.

By statute, a municipal board is required to provide not only a statement of its findings of fact, but also "the reasons or basis" for them. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2691(3)(E) (2005). Adequate findings of fact are crucial to the Court's review of a zoning board's action under Rule 80B because "[m]eaningful judicial review of an agency decision is not possible without findings of fact sufficient to apprise the Court of the decision's basis." Chapel Road Associates, LLC v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178, <]I 9, 787 A.2d 137, 140.

For example, in an 80B appeal considering a subdivision plan, the Law Court remanded for additional fact finding where the "findings" in the record merely consisted of the Board's "secretary's paraphrasing of the reasons given by some ... of the Board members for their votes." Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, <]I 31,837 A.2d 148, 157. On remand, the Court instructed the Board to

make findings" addressing each factor that must be considered" and noted that the comments in the minutes were "not findings." Id.

Although meeting minutes are not a part of aboard's findings, this Court may examine them to aid it in understanding "incomplete or ambiguous findings" of fact. Ram's Head Partners, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2003:ME 131, <n: 14 n.1, 834 A.2d 916, 920. A review of the transcripts and meeting minutes of the CDC, City Council, and Planning Board reveals some confusion about the parties' understanding of square footage limits during the evolution of the plan. Paragraph 10 of the CZA provides that § 14-185 of the City's Land Use Code ("LUC"), which controls the B-2 zoning district, governs the project's dimensional standards. That section of the LUC does not list a 14,000 square foot limitation, although the CZA may modify portions of the LUC for this project. As noted above, the sketch plan was incorporated into the CZA. Although the initial plan was for an expansion of the existing facility to approximately 14,000 square feet, Morrills Corner argues that the project should not be limited to that figure in the absence of an express prohibition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI