V & C Enterprises, Inc. v. City of South Portland

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 14, 2006
• Docket: CUMap-05-85
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE . . . ... . .. . . SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS , . .. I .: , .I , . . . CIVIL ACTION . .. . . , . , .. . I .

: , I . . ... , .. . DOCKET NO. AP-05-85 . /

,' I

I-?',.

. '., . .-. . - , "C. ' .f ,;. ,. . , .-,- ,.. . ., ,...) "-, . '

V & C ENTERPRISES, INC. :. . l j

Petitioners

v.

CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND, DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent and

BEVERLY MARTIN, DAVID McHUGH, NANCY McHUGH, and TRISHA LAND,

Intervenors

This matter before the court is an appeal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2005, petitioner V&C Enterprises ("V&CU)purchased a single-

family home situated on 9,000 square feet located at 24 McLean Street in South

Portland. R. at tab 1, page 3. 24 McLean contains two abutting 4500 square foot parcels

that were originally identified as Lots 5 and 7 on the "Plan of Building in South

Portland, Maine owned by Albert J. McLean" and recorded in the Cumberland Count

Registry of Deeds in April 1920. R. at tab 1, page 3; R. at tab 7, page 135. The single-

family home purchased by V&C sits on Lot 7 w h l e Lot 5 remains vacant. R. at tab 1.

As such, on August 31, 2005, V&C filed an application for a variance seeking a 500

square foot dimensional variance to construct a single-family house on Lot 5.' R. tab 1.

Following a public hearing on September 28, 2005, the City of South Portland -

'The City of South Portland requires lots to be at least 5,000 square feet to construct a home. South Portland, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. I1 5 27-7(g) (March 17,1975). Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") denied V&C's application for a variance. R. at tab 7,

page 182; R. at tab 9. The ZBA found that Lots 5 and 7 merged into a single lot and, as

a result, the ZBA did not have the authority to grant the dimensional variance request.

R. at tab 6, page 12; R. at tab 7 pages 171-78, 182-83. Consequently, V&C filed a Rule

80B appeal in the Cumberland County Superior Court on November 10,2005.

11. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a ZBA "acts as the tribunal of original jurisdiction as both fact finder and

decision maker, [the court] review[s] its decision directly for errors of law, abuse of

discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record." Brackett v.

Town of liangeley, 2003 ME 109, ¶ 15, 831 A.2d 422,427. In reviewing the ZBA's action,

this court "is not free to make findings of fact independently of those found by the

municipal zoning authority. It may not substitute its judgment for that of the municipal

body." Mack v. Municipal Officersof Cape Elizabeth, 463 A.2d 717, 719-20 (Me. 1983). See

also Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶ 17, 868 A.2d 161, 166. A ZBA's

interpretation of municipal ordinance, however, is a question of law subject to de novo

review. Nugent v. Town of Camden, 1998 ME 92, ¶ 7, 710 A.2d 245, 247. Finally, in a Rule

80B action, the burden of persuasion rests with the party seeking to overturn the local

decision. Id. at 720.

111. DISCUSSION

The decisive issue in this case is whether Lots 5 and 7 merged. If the lots

merged, the ZBA lacked the authority to issue a dimensional variance and correctly

denied the petitioner's request. The petitioner argues that the lots did not merge

because an exception to the ordinance's merger provision applies.

In pertinent part, Article I1 § 27-7(f) provides: Abutting lots in the same ownership and of continuous frontage shall, after January 1, 1978, merge and be consider as one (1)lot for purposes of determining compliance with the space and bulk regulations for the district in which the lots are located, except that the following lots shall not merge and shall be considered as buildable lots as herein provided: .... (3) Any lot whch meets the criteria set forth in subsection (h).

South Portland, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. I1 § 27-7(f) (March 17, 1975).

Also, section 27-7(h) provides:

Lots of record in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds prior to September 20,1943 in Residential Districts AA, A, G and F shall be at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in area regardless of when the plans of such parcels were recorded or registered.

South Portland, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. I1 9 27-7(h)(1)(March 17,1975).

When interpreting an ordinance, the court first considers the plain meaning of

the language of the provisions to be interpreted. Lewis v. Town of Rockport, 2005 ME 44,

¶Ill 870 A. 2d 107, 110; Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶ 22, 868 A.2d

The court can look to regular dictionary definitions for guidance in construing

the plain meaning of an ordinance term. See Bangs v. Town of Wells, 2000 ME 186, ¶ 19,

760 A.2D 632, 637; Apex Custom Lease Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 677 A.2d 530, 533 (Me.

It is undisputed that the lots abut each other, have continuous frontage on

McLean Street, have been and remain in the same ownership, and are zoned Residential

District A. See R. at tab 8. Therefore, unless § 27-7(h)(1) excepts the lots, Lots 5 and 7

merged pursuant to 9 27-7(f).

The petitioner argues that to determine the underlying meaning of § 27-7(h)'s

"shall be," the court should examine the plain meaning of the term as defined in a

general dictionary. According to the petitioner, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "shall be" as indicating simple futurity, e.g., "I shall be 28 tomorrow." Because

"shall be" connotes futurity, the petitioner contends the January 1, 1978 date provided

in 9 27-7(f) is not the applicable date for purposes of determining whether and when

Lots 5 and 7 will merge; rather, the square footage requirement will be examined at the

time any owner seeks to build upon the lot.

"Shall" and "shall be" are legal terms of art meaning "required to" or "has a

duty to." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1379 (7th ed. 1999). These definitions do not

demonstrate futurity, but rather express a present and continuous obligation.

Furthermore, pursuant to standards of drafting, using "shall" is only appropriate if it

connotes "required to" or "has a duty to." See id. at 1380. As drafted and used in 27-

7(h)(l) and in several thousand other ordinances, rules, and laws, "shall be" commands

~ this case, then, only lots of or requires compliance with the corresponding p h r a ~ e .In

5,000 square feet will not, although in the same ownership and of continuous frontage,

merge into one lot. To hold otherwise would torture the plain meaning of the phrase

"shall be."

IV. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

V&C Enterprises has not provided any evidence or argument that compels this

court to reverse of the Board's. The clerk shall make the following entry as the Decision

and Judgment of the court.

The decision of the ZBA denying V&C's variance request is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July $, 2006 d 5 mas E. a anty 11 Justice, Superior ~ o & t

Additionally, in formal American usage, shall expresses "an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence." THEAMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISHLANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000), http:/ / dictionary.reference.com / browse / shall. Date Filed 1I -I n -ns n Docket No. - A P O ~ 85 County

Action SOU A P P E A T ,

V & C ENTERPRISES INC. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND Intervenor BEVERLY M A R T I N PI1 Intervenor D A V I D MCHUGH PI1 Intervenor NANCY MCHUGH PI1 Intervenor TISHA LAND PI1 VS.

I Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney ~ e n n i f e rArcher Esq. Mary K a h l , E s q . PO BOX 597 P.O. BOX 9422 Portland ME 04112 SOUTH PORTLAND, M A I N E 04116-9422 Timothy Norton, Esq. 767-7605

h Michael Martin Esq. (Intervenors) PO BOX 17555 Portland ME 04112 Date of Entry 2005 Nov. 14 ~ e c e i v e d11-10-05. Complaint including appeal pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B filed.

Nov. 14 R e c e i v e d 11-14-05: P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion t o S p e c i f y F u t u r e C o u r s e o f P r o c e e d i n g s w i t h I n c o r p o r a t e d Memorandum f i l e d .

Dec. 1 Received on 12/01/05 : Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summons & Complaint and Acceptance of Service upon defendants to Mary Kahl, Esq. on 11/29/05 filed.

Dec. 7 R e c e i v e d 12-07-05: Defendant, C i t y of South P o r t l a n d F i l e d .

Dec. 7 R e c e i v e d 12-07-05: D e f e n d a n t , C i t y o f S o u t h P o r t l a n d ' s Motion t o D i s m i s s Count I1 w i t h I n c o r p o r a t e d Memorandum o f Law f i l e d . I' II Defendant, C i t y of South P o r t l a n d ' s Objection t o P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion t o S p e c i f y F u t u r e C o u r s e o f P r o c e e d i n g s a n d D r a f t Order w i t h 1 n . c o r p o r a t e d Memorandum o f Law f i l e d . I1 II R e q u e s t f o r H e a r i n g o n D e f e n d a n t , C i t ~o f S o u t h ~ o r t l a n d ' s Motion t o D i s m i s s Count I1 f i l e d . Dec. 27 R e c e i v e d 12--27-05: P l a i n t i f f ' s O p p o s i t i o n t o Motion To is miss f i l e d .

Dec 27 Receive.d 12-27-05: Motion t o I n t e r v e n e o f B e v e r l y M a r t i n , avid a n d Nancy McFIuffh and T i s h a . Land I1 11 I n t e r v e n e r s / ~ a r t i e s - " I n - I n . t e r e s tAnswer t o C o m p l a i n t f i l e d .

;an. 24 On 01-24-06: A s t o P l a i n t i . f f l s ~ o t i o nt o S p e c i f y F u t u r e C o u r s e of P r o c e e d - i n g s w i t h I n c o r p o r a t ~ ? dMemorandum. ( D e l . a h z n t v , J . ) . S e e O r d e r s u b m i t t e d b>7 D e f e n d a n t , C i t y of S o u t h Port]-anc s p p r o v e d by C o u r t t h i s d a t e . r n n t i ni1er-3 o n next D a n e - - . ..- . . . .. ..... V & C ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND Docket No. AP-05-85

On 05-31-06: Hearing held on Defendant, City of South Portland Motion to Dismissand 80B Appeal. Court takes Matter under Advisement Presiding, Justice Thomas Dela.ha.nty. Jennifer Archer, Esq. present for V & C Enterprisss Inc. Mary Kahl, Esq. present for City of South Portland. James Haddow, Esq. Intervenors. No Record made. Received 07-18-06: Decision and Judgment filed. (Delahanty, J.). V&C Enterprises has not provided any evidence or argument that compels this court to reverse of the Board's. The clerk shall make the following entry as the Decision and Ju6gnent of the court. The decision of the ZRA denying V&C1s variance request is affirmed. SO ORDERED. On 07-18-06 copies nailed to Michael Xartin, M a r y Kahl a.nd Jennifer Archer, Esqs., Xs. DeSorah Firestone, Goss ~.imeograph The Donald Garbrecht Law Library and ~ o i s l a w . c o ~ i,n c . V & C ENTERPRISES, I N C . v s . CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND

Docket No.

c o n t i n u e d from p r e v i o u s p a g e . . . . ............. On 01-24-06 copies mailed t o Jennifer Archer a n d Mary Kahl, Esqs.

R e c e i v e d 01-24-06: Order S p e c i f y i n g t h e F u t u r e Course o f Proceedings f i l e d . (Delahanty, J. ) . I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED t h a t t h e f u t u r e c o u r s e o f p r o c e e d - - i n g s i n t h i s a c t i o n s h a l l h e a s f o l l o w s : 1. P l a i n t i f f s h a l l s u b m i t i t s R u l e 80B A p p e a l b r i e f w i t h i n f o r t y ( 4 0 ) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r . The D e f e n d a n t s h a l l s u b m i t i t s R u l e 80B A p p e a l b r i e f w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e P 1 . a i n t i f f l s b r i e f . The P l a i n . - t i f f s h a l l have f o u r t e e n (14) days a f t e r s e r v i c e of De- f e n d a n t ' s b r i e f t o f i l e a r e p l y b r i e f . 2. To t h e e x t e n t a n t y i s s u e s a r e n o t r e s o l v e d by t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e R u l e 80B a p p e a l a n d r e q u i r e t r i a l , t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l c o m p l e t e a l l n e c e s s a r y d i s c o v e r y w i t h i n f o u r months from t h e d a t e o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e R u l e 80B A p p e a l . 3 . W i t h i n f o u r - t e e n (14) days of t h e c l o s e of t h e discovery period, t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l submit t o t h e C o u r t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f any f a c t u a l i s s u e s t o be t r i e d and an e s t i m a t e o f t h e t i m e n e c e s s a r y f o r t r i a l . I f no f a c t u a l i s s u e s r e m a i n t o h e t r i e d , t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l submit a sucjgestcd s c h e d u l e f o r s u b m i s s i o n o f a s t a t e m e n t of m a t e r i a l f a c t s and b r i e f s on any r e m a i n i n g l e g a l i s s u e s n o t d e t e r m i n e d by t h e Rule 80B A p p e a l . A t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e C o u r t , t h i s O r d e r S h a l l b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d o c k e t by r e f e r e n c e . R u l e 79 ( a ) . On 01-24-06 C o p i e s m a i l e d t o J e n n i f e r A r c h e r a n d Mary Kahl, Esqs. 2-13-06 copy mailed t o Michael Martin, Esq. R e c e i v e d 01--24-06: Order f i l e d . (Delahanty, J. ) . I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED t h a t t h e M o t i o n i s g r a n t e d a n d I n t e r - veners/Parties-in-Intexest B e v e r l y M a r t i n , D a v i d McHugh, Nancy McHugh a n d T i s h a Land a r e h e r e b y a l l - o w e d t o i n t e r - v e n e i n t h i s m a t t e r t o o p p o s e t h e a p p e a l f i l e d by V & C Enterprises, Inc. On 01-24-06 C o p i e s m a i l e d t o J e n n i f e r A r c h e r a.nd Mary Kahl, Esqs. 2-13-06 copy mailed t o Michael Martin E s q

Received on 03/03/06: P l a i n t i f f ' s 80B Brief with record f i l e d .

Received on 03/30/06: Defendant City of South Portland's Rule 80B Brief f i l e d .

Received 3-31-06. Parties-In-Interest, Beverly Martin, David McHugh, Nancy McHugh and Tisha Land's b r i e f f i l e d .

teceived on 04/12/06: ' l a i n t i f f ' s 80B Reply Brief f i l e d .