STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION ......... t .,
- Docket No. AP-07-p' I / ~,
)£.:D- CI} \\'- y::,/ 3~U()7 , I I !
i.~ J ,,'_ -...J .--' i
SIDNEY ST. F. THAXTER and MARY E. MCCANN THAXTER,
Plaintiffs,
v. DECISION AND JUDGMENT (M.R.Civ.P. 80B) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF PORTLAND and JOSHUA C. EMPSON, DONALD L. GARP'''.':I"''I-fT ;.4'11/ !Jl.1r:'I':"'\ Defendants. ,JAN 1 5 2006
The plaintiffs (Thaxter) appeal pursuant to M.R.Civ~ SOB from the City of
Portland Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval of the code enforcement officer's
(CEO) decision granting a building permit on Cushings Island to Joshua Empson.
I. BACKGROUND
Empson owns a parcel of land at 224 Shore Road on Cushings Island. His parcel
fails to meet the minimum lot size for development. The zoning ordinance allows the
combination of a smaller lot and a non-contiguous parcel to be joined to meet the
minimum square footage, if the non-contiguous parcel is burdened by a conservation
easement. Empson is attempting to develop his lot using a non-contiguous lot to meet
the minimum lot size. The CEO approved Empson's plan and issued him a building
permit. The Thaxters' own land that abuts Empson's parcel and appealed the decision
of the CEO to issue the building permit.
On January 4, 2007, the ZBA voted 3-1 to deny the Thaxters' appeal. The ZBA
issued findings after the meeting on January 4, 2007. The ZBA subsequently voted 3-1 to adopt supplemental findings of fact on January 18, 2007 pertaining to the Thaxters'
appeal. On February 15, 2007, the ZBA voted 4-0 to adopt findings and conclusions of
law for the Empson parcel.
II. DISCUSSION
This court reviews the Board's decision for" abuse of discretion, errors of law, or
findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." McCullough v. Town of
Sanford, 687 A.2d 629,630 (Me. 1996). In order to prevail, the petitioner must prove that
the evidence in the record "compels and contrary conclusion." Boivin v. Sanford, 588
A.2d 1197, 1199 (Me. 1991).
A. Quorum
The ZBA voted 3-1 on January 4, 2007 to deny the Thaxters' appeal. By the terms
of its ordinance, the ZBA is required to have four members of the ZBA concur on a vote
in order "to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to sustain any
appeaL"]
No business shall be transacted by the board of appeals without a quorum, consisting of four (4) members, being present. Except as expressly provided herein, the concurring vote of at least four (4) members of the board shall be necessary to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to sustain any appeal.
§ 14-548, Code of Ordinances, City of Portland Rev. 5-4-07.
Although the Portland ZBA had a quorum of four members present, the number
of votes required was not addressed in Stephenson. That decision addressed the
authority of a municipal board to act when it had less than the number of members
required by the ordinance; however, Justice Alexander (joined by Justice Clifford) did
1 This assumes that the ZBA was empowered to conduct business in spite of the fact that it had a vacancy at the time it heard the Thaxters' appeal given the recent Law Court decision in Stevenson, et aI. v. Town of Kennebunk, 2007 ME 55, _ _ A.2d _ _ (decided April 26, 2007, after the ZBA decision).
2 raise the issue in a separate concurrance. He cites 1 M.R.S. § 71(3) (2006) regarding the
interpretation of statutes:
The following rules shall be observed in the construction of statutes, unless such construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the enactment.
***
3. Authority to 3 or more. Words giving authority to 3 or more persons authorize a majority to act, when the enactment does not otherwise determine.
This directive applies to statutes, but it is logical to apply the same standard to
interpretation of local ordinances.
A necessary quorum of four ZBA members was present and voted on January 4,
and 18,2007. Ordinarily a 3-1 vote would be a sufficient majority for the ZBA to decide
a matter; however, the ordinance also requires "the concurring vote of at least four (4)
members of the board ... to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to
sustain any appeal." (emphasis added)
It appears unfair to require an appellant to the ZBA to secure a unanimous vote
of all four members to sustain an appeal, but less than that to deny or dismiss an
appeal.
The court concludes that the term "authorize any action" includes a vote to deny
or dismiss an appeal and uphold the action of the CEO. Since there was not a four
member concurrence, no action should have taken place and the Thaxter appeal should
have been continued until such a time as the ZBA could obtain four concurring votes in
order to act to uphold the CEO's interpretation. 2
2 As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs' object to the findings of fact and legal conclusions that were approved by the ZBA on February 15, 2007 and instead submit that the only proper findings of fact and legal conclusions on the record for review are the findings dated January 4, 2007. The findings dated February 15, 2007 are not properly before the court because they were
3 B. Record
Decisions of municipal boards are to be upheld in the absence of an "error of law,
abuse of discretion or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record."
Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91,
governmental entity" must state both the reasons for its decision and the underlying
facts in order to ensure effective judicial review." Sanborn v. town of Eliot, et al., 425 A.2d
629, 630 (Me. 1981). See also Time Enough Inc. v. Town of Standish, 670 A.2d 918 (Me.
1996) (requiring appellant to provide full documentation of evidence relied upon by the
board in making its decision). The purpose of such a requirement is to allow a court to
"determine whether the Board may have misinterpreted the underlying facts or
misconstrued the provisions of the ordinance." Sanborn, 425 A.2d at 630. A trial of the
facts under 80B(d) is appropriate to supplement the record for appellate review, not to
re-try the facts of the case. Baker's Table Inc. v. City of Portland, 2000 ME 7,
237,240.
The two-page findings of fact in the record of this case are insufficient as a matter
of law to support the decision of the ZBA to uphold the decision of the issuance of the
building permit. The ZBA, after accepting service of Thaxters' 80B appeal,
supplemented the record by approving detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law
in support of their decision. M.R.Civ.P. 80B(e) has a procedure to supplement a record.
This court's review of the record is limited to the evidence relied upon by the board in
making its decision. M.R.Civ.P. 80B(f).
created after the Thaxters filed an appeal and after the ZBA's counsel accepted service of the complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION ......... t .,
- Docket No. AP-07-p' I / ~,
)£.:D- CI} \\'- y::,/ 3~U()7 , I I !
i.~ J ,,'_ -...J .--' i
SIDNEY ST. F. THAXTER and MARY E. MCCANN THAXTER,
Plaintiffs,
v. DECISION AND JUDGMENT (M.R.Civ.P. 80B) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF PORTLAND and JOSHUA C. EMPSON, DONALD L. GARP'''.':I"''I-fT ;.4'11/ !Jl.1r:'I':"'\ Defendants. ,JAN 1 5 2006
The plaintiffs (Thaxter) appeal pursuant to M.R.Civ~ SOB from the City of
Portland Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval of the code enforcement officer's
(CEO) decision granting a building permit on Cushings Island to Joshua Empson.
I. BACKGROUND
Empson owns a parcel of land at 224 Shore Road on Cushings Island. His parcel
fails to meet the minimum lot size for development. The zoning ordinance allows the
combination of a smaller lot and a non-contiguous parcel to be joined to meet the
minimum square footage, if the non-contiguous parcel is burdened by a conservation
easement. Empson is attempting to develop his lot using a non-contiguous lot to meet
the minimum lot size. The CEO approved Empson's plan and issued him a building
permit. The Thaxters' own land that abuts Empson's parcel and appealed the decision
of the CEO to issue the building permit.
On January 4, 2007, the ZBA voted 3-1 to deny the Thaxters' appeal. The ZBA
issued findings after the meeting on January 4, 2007. The ZBA subsequently voted 3-1 to adopt supplemental findings of fact on January 18, 2007 pertaining to the Thaxters'
appeal. On February 15, 2007, the ZBA voted 4-0 to adopt findings and conclusions of
law for the Empson parcel.
II. DISCUSSION
This court reviews the Board's decision for" abuse of discretion, errors of law, or
findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." McCullough v. Town of
Sanford, 687 A.2d 629,630 (Me. 1996). In order to prevail, the petitioner must prove that
the evidence in the record "compels and contrary conclusion." Boivin v. Sanford, 588
A.2d 1197, 1199 (Me. 1991).
A. Quorum
The ZBA voted 3-1 on January 4, 2007 to deny the Thaxters' appeal. By the terms
of its ordinance, the ZBA is required to have four members of the ZBA concur on a vote
in order "to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to sustain any
appeaL"]
No business shall be transacted by the board of appeals without a quorum, consisting of four (4) members, being present. Except as expressly provided herein, the concurring vote of at least four (4) members of the board shall be necessary to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to sustain any appeal.
§ 14-548, Code of Ordinances, City of Portland Rev. 5-4-07.
Although the Portland ZBA had a quorum of four members present, the number
of votes required was not addressed in Stephenson. That decision addressed the
authority of a municipal board to act when it had less than the number of members
required by the ordinance; however, Justice Alexander (joined by Justice Clifford) did
1 This assumes that the ZBA was empowered to conduct business in spite of the fact that it had a vacancy at the time it heard the Thaxters' appeal given the recent Law Court decision in Stevenson, et aI. v. Town of Kennebunk, 2007 ME 55, _ _ A.2d _ _ (decided April 26, 2007, after the ZBA decision).
2 raise the issue in a separate concurrance. He cites 1 M.R.S. § 71(3) (2006) regarding the
interpretation of statutes:
The following rules shall be observed in the construction of statutes, unless such construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the enactment.
***
3. Authority to 3 or more. Words giving authority to 3 or more persons authorize a majority to act, when the enactment does not otherwise determine.
This directive applies to statutes, but it is logical to apply the same standard to
interpretation of local ordinances.
A necessary quorum of four ZBA members was present and voted on January 4,
and 18,2007. Ordinarily a 3-1 vote would be a sufficient majority for the ZBA to decide
a matter; however, the ordinance also requires "the concurring vote of at least four (4)
members of the board ... to authorize any action, to grant any request or application or to
sustain any appeal." (emphasis added)
It appears unfair to require an appellant to the ZBA to secure a unanimous vote
of all four members to sustain an appeal, but less than that to deny or dismiss an
appeal.
The court concludes that the term "authorize any action" includes a vote to deny
or dismiss an appeal and uphold the action of the CEO. Since there was not a four
member concurrence, no action should have taken place and the Thaxter appeal should
have been continued until such a time as the ZBA could obtain four concurring votes in
order to act to uphold the CEO's interpretation. 2
2 As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs' object to the findings of fact and legal conclusions that were approved by the ZBA on February 15, 2007 and instead submit that the only proper findings of fact and legal conclusions on the record for review are the findings dated January 4, 2007. The findings dated February 15, 2007 are not properly before the court because they were
3 B. Record
Decisions of municipal boards are to be upheld in the absence of an "error of law,
abuse of discretion or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record."
Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91,
governmental entity" must state both the reasons for its decision and the underlying
facts in order to ensure effective judicial review." Sanborn v. town of Eliot, et al., 425 A.2d
629, 630 (Me. 1981). See also Time Enough Inc. v. Town of Standish, 670 A.2d 918 (Me.
1996) (requiring appellant to provide full documentation of evidence relied upon by the
board in making its decision). The purpose of such a requirement is to allow a court to
"determine whether the Board may have misinterpreted the underlying facts or
misconstrued the provisions of the ordinance." Sanborn, 425 A.2d at 630. A trial of the
facts under 80B(d) is appropriate to supplement the record for appellate review, not to
re-try the facts of the case. Baker's Table Inc. v. City of Portland, 2000 ME 7,
237,240.
The two-page findings of fact in the record of this case are insufficient as a matter
of law to support the decision of the ZBA to uphold the decision of the issuance of the
building permit. The ZBA, after accepting service of Thaxters' 80B appeal,
supplemented the record by approving detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law
in support of their decision. M.R.Civ.P. 80B(e) has a procedure to supplement a record.
This court's review of the record is limited to the evidence relied upon by the board in
making its decision. M.R.Civ.P. 80B(f).
created after the Thaxters filed an appeal and after the ZBA's counsel accepted service of the complaint. As such, those findings are not a part of the record from which the plaintiff appealed or the court would consider and would serve for a basis for remand, on its own.
4 Whereas there is no transcript of the ZBA hearing, the findings of facts issued
after the hearing are insufficient. This court is unable to review the record to determine
if the decision of the ZBA was adequately supported by the record.
The document purporting to be a record of the ZBA decision cannot be
considered by the court because it was created after Thaxters' appeal was taken and, as
acknowledged by counsel for the ZBA at oral argument, was prospective of this appeal.
It is untenable that one party to an appeal can subsequently modify the record for
purposes of appellate review. Since there is no transcript, it is impossible to verify the
accuracy of the subsequent ZBA findings of fact and conclusions of law. Had Thaxter
agreed to the record, the court may have permitted the record to be supplemented.
However, in the absence of plaintiffs' agreement, the ZBA is unable to supplement the
record in this manner.
III. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Because there is no valid final decision of the ZBA for this court to review, the
clerk will make the following entry as the Decision and Judgment of the court:
A. Plaintiffs' appeal is sustained.
B. The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue the building permit is vacated.
C. The case is remanded to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a decision in which four members concur and for the approval of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 30,2007
5 ~~ DoCr-\ret No. -
DateFiled~
Action .----J8~O:)JBUA~PTP1EA~LL--------- CITY OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SlDNE~ S~ F ~RAX~ER PORTLAND MARY E MCCANN THAXTER JOSHUA C EMPSON
VS.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney SIDNEY ST F THAXTER ESQ CHRIS NEAGLE ESQ (JOSHUA EMPSON) ONE CANAL PLAZA, SUITE 1000 TROUBH HEISLER PORTLAND ME 04112-7320 PO BOX 9711 (207) 774-9000 PORTLAND ME 04104-5011 tel:780-6789 HILLIAl1 HESERVE ESQ (VISITING ATTY) JAMES R. ADOLF, ESQ. (CITY OF PORTLAND) 389 CONGRESS STREET PORTLAND ME 04101 874-8480