Nardi v. Town of Kennebunkport

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 16, 2007
• Docket: YORap-06-026
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-06-026 ~ "" ; ~., ~:' ~

CHARLES L. NARDI,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER G~tlBtlEC,"," OO"'~~~i\.\aR~RY TOWN OF KENNBUNKPORT, S£.? 0 1 1\\\\1 MARY KAE LAROSE and MARC MONTAGNER,

Defendants

This matter comes before the Court on Charles and Marnie Nardi's 80B appeal of

administrative action taken by the Town of Kennebunkport. Following hearing, the

appeal is Denied.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Charles and Mamie Nardi ("the Nardis") filed this 80B appeal in their

capacities as Trustees of the First Amended and Restated Revocable Trust of Charles L.

Nardi and the First Amended and Restated Revocable Trust of Mamie J. Nardi. Mr.

Nardi owns residential property at Skipper Joe's Point in Kennebunkport, Maine, on

which he maintains a summer home. Mary Kae LaRose ("LaRose") and Marc

Montagner ("Montagner") live in Washington, D.C. and also own 4.37 acres of

residential property at Skipper Joe's Point, which abuts Mr. Nardi's property. A single-

family residence established by the prior owner occupies the southwestern part of the

LaRose and Montagner property.

This Court adjudicated a similar, earlier dispute involving the same property in

2001, when it entered an order that no new residence could be built on the property now owned by LaRose and Montagner due to its location in several protected areas,

including the Critical Edge Overlay Zone, Goose Rocks Beach Zone, Shoreland Overlay

Zone, and Resource Protection Zone. Nardi v. Town of Kennebunkport, ALFSC-AP-2000­

001 (Me. Super. Ct., Yor. Cty., Feb. 12, 2001) (Brennan, J.). The Kennebunkport land use

ordinance states that single-family homes are not permitted uses within the Resource

Protection Zone and Critical Edge; accordingly, this Court overturned the Board's

decision to grant a building permit in that area. l Id. The Court's main rationale was

that the planning board did not have the authority to resolve a discrepancy between the

physical location of the home and the boundary depiction on the zoning map by

altering the boundary.2 Neither side appealed the 2001 order preventing the new

construction.

In February 2006, LaRose and Montagner sought site plan approval from the

planning board (lithe Board") to construct a concrete foundation to replace the current

cinderblock foundation, and then move the existing residence onto the new foundation,

which would be at a different physical location on their property. On May 3, 2006, the

Board held a public hearing to debate the matter, and in findings and conclusions dated

May 17, it approved the site plan review application, finding that it complied with the

requisite performance standards and would actually increase the structure's conformity

with the ordinance. The Nardis then appealed that decision to this Court, contending

that it was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by evidence, and an error of law.

Defendant Town of Kennebunkport (lithe Town") and LaRose and Montagner contend

that the Board is entitled to deference and properly approved their application.

Existing homes in those areas are grandfathered as permitted, non-conforming uses. 2 In 2002, the Town altered § 3.2.C of the ordinance to vest the CEO with authority to interpret boundaries where a discrepancy exists. The section also states that written descriptions prevail over maps where there is a discrepancy, but it does not enable the CEO to redraw boundaries.

2 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, «j[ 8, 865 A.2d 555, 558. This Court is "limited to determining whether the record

contains evidence to justify the Board's determination." Lewis v. Maine Coast Artists,

2001 ME 75, «j[ 14, 770 A.2d 644,650.

2. Is This Project an Impermissible Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use?

The Nardis frame the central debate in this case as whether the Board properly

analyzed the residence on the LaRose and Montagner property solely as a non­

conforming structure rather than as a non-conforming structure and a non-conforming

use. They argue that the Board failed to consider that the property is subject to the

stringent standards applicable to non-conforming uses because any single-family home

in a protected area such as the Critical Edge is automatically a non-conforming use. The

Town recognizes that the single-family home is a non-conforming use, but contends

that the Board correctly determined that changing the placement of the house would

not violate the ordinances applicable to non-conforming uses. Also, the Town points

out that the use of the residence will not change - it will be a dwelling regardless of

where on the property it is placed. Because the Board did not believe the proposal

would result in a change of use, it focused on the home as a non-conforming structure.

The Town's Land Use Ordinance ("LUG") states that "[a] non-conforming

structure or use shall not be changed, extended or enlarged in any manner except as

provided in this subsection." LUG Art. 8, §8.2.A. An expansion of use for such a

structure constitutes, in part, adding "the use of more floor area or ground area devoted

3 to a particular use." LUa Art. 2, § 2.2. Expanded uses are permitted even within the

Critical Edge - LUa Art. 5, § 5.5.B.2 specifically provides that expansion or enlargement

of pre-existing dwellings is permissible in that area as long as certain criteria are

satisfied. The Lua also notes that replacing a foundation or constructing one does not

constitute an expansion of use. Art. 8, § 8.2.B.2.

The Law Court upheld aboard's determination that a proposed use would

improperly expand a nonconforming use in Two Lights Lobster Shack v. Town of Cape

Elizabeth, 1998 ME 153, «]I 1, 712 A.2d 1061, 1062. There, the plaintiff sought to build a

foundation under the restaurant, resulting in the addition of a basement. Id. «]I 3, 712

A.2d at 1062. The board had properly determined that the restaurant was already a

nonconforming use in the zones in which it was located. Id. «]I 2, 712 A.2d at 1062. Thus,

the Court upheld the board's determination that, while building a foundation was

permissible under the town's ordinance, altering the building's use to include a

basement was an impermissible expansion of what was already a nonconforming use.

Id. «]I 4, 712 A.2d at 1062.

The Nardis argue that an analogous situation is presented here, as Montagner

and LaRose proposed a permissible foundation addition but an impermissible

expansion of a non-conforming use. They contend that, while the dwelling may stay

where it is, § 8.2.B.2 of the LUa does not allow it to be moved or changed in any way,

which would include moving it to a different area of the property. 3 In addition, they

contend that the area of the property to which the house would be moved is the same

3 The Nardis rely on a recent Law Court case, which addressed change of use. See Conway Lake Resorts, Inc. v. Quisisana Resort, 2006 ME 77, lJI 4, 899 A.2d 815, 817. That case involved a jurisdictional issue, but to the extent the facts are comparable, the plaintiff was attempting to change part of one non­ conforming use, a restaurant, into another non-conforming use, hotel space. Id. lJI 2, 899 A.2d at 816. Here, Montagner and LaRose do not propose to replace one non-conforming use with another; they seek to relocate the non-conforming use and continue it in the same manner.

4 area at issue in 2001, when this Court held that no new construction could take place

there. Montagner and LaRose distinguish their case because, unlike the project in the

2001 case, their proposal would not involve completely new construction. 4 They also

contend that transferring the home, although it is both a non-conforming structure and

a non-conforming use, is not an expansion, but merely a continuation of the same non­

conforming use, which is not barred under § 8.2.B.2. The Board agreed, stating that in

its view, the section seems to contemplate relocating a structure. It also determined that

moving the structure would remove it from the Resource Protection Zone. As the

Board's primary function in this matter was to determine whether the relocation was an

improper use expansion, and the fact that the property is both a non-conforming use

and structure is not debated, this Court must review the Board's factual conclusions

with deference.

At the May 3, 2006 hearing, the Board heard substantial testimony and reviewed

the ordinances and evidence carefully.5 Board members reasoned that if the structure

were allowed, the use would necessarily be permitted. They also discussed that this

would not entail a changed use, which could be prohibited; instead, it would merely be

a change of location of an existing use. Counsel for Nardi argued that prolonging the

non-conforming use by adding a new foundation contradicts the goal of gradually

eliminating non-conformity, although she conceded that the ordinance allows this. But,

the Board analyzed the project primarily as a non-conforming structure because it

4 Additionally, the new construction in the 2001 case would have resulted in two houses on the same parcel because the existing house would have been undisturbed. 5 In the parties' briefs, there is some disagreement as to whether the entire Montagner/ LaRose parcel is fully in the RP zone, or whether it is only partially in that zone, which would affect conformity of the structure. The Nardis contend that the zoning map depicts the property as within the RP zone in its entirety. Montagner and LaRose contend that it is only partially RP property in light of a 1999 FEMA map revision, and that moving the residence would completely remove the house from the RP zone. The Court need not definitively address this issue because the non-conforming use is permitted, regardless of whether the structure is partially or wholly in the RP area.

5 detennined that the use would not change, which is a factual determination to which

this Court must defer in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. A review

of the record does not reveal evidence that would require the Court to overturn the

Board's finding that moving the house onto a new foundation on a different area of the

property would not constitute an improper expansion of the non-confonning use. The

Board's findings that the relocation and the new foundation are permitted under the

Town's ordinances is affinned.

3. Did the Board Properly Determine That The Project Satisfied All Review Standards?

This Court deferentially reviews a board's factual findings to detennine whether

the evidence before the board justified the decision. Lewis v. Maine Coast Artists, 2001

ME 75, «JI 14, 770 A.2d 644, 650. The Court may not overturn a board's decision

"because the record is inconsistent" or it is possible to reach a "different conclusion"

than the board did. Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916 (Me. 1995).

Here, the Board reviewed the criteria in LUa § 10.10.A and found that the

Montagner/ LaRose plan met all sixteen, as well as additional criteria applicable in the

Shoreland Zone, the Critical Edge, and the Resource Protection Zone. The Nardis

contend that the board failed to factor in that the dwelling is a prohibited use. As stated

above, however, the dwelling is not a prohibited use. Also, the Nardis argue that the

Board mistakenly determined that the relocation would not have a substantial affect on

their view of the water. Montagner and LaRose contend that the Board properly made

that detennination because the Nardis' view is expansive and the Nardis do not have a

visual easement over that area. Because the record contains sufficient evidence to

support the Board's finding that the relocation met the LUa criteria and would not

substantially harm the Nardis' view, the decision is affirmed.

6 CONCLUSION

The appeal is Denied and the Board's decision is Affirmed.

Dated: May Ib, 2007

PLAINTIFF: JOHN C. BANNON, ESQ. MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085

DEFENDANT: TOWN OF KENNEBUNKPORT BRIAN J. WILLING, ESQ. DRUMMOND WOODSUM & MACMAHON PO BOX 9781 PORTLAND ME 04104-5081

DEFENDANTS: MARYKAE LAROSE & MARC MONTAGNER RALPH W. AUSTIN, ESQ. WOODMAN EDMANDS DANYLIK & AUSTIN PO BOX 468 BIDDEFORD ME 04005