327 A.3d 1093
Me.2024Background
- 15 Langsford Owner LLC purchased 11 condominium units in Kennebunkport, which were classified as a single multiplex (units 1-9) and two freestanding dwellings (units 10-11) previously approved as residential dwellings.
- Starting April 2021, 15 Langsford rented out these units for less than 30 days at a time, before the Town regulated short-term rentals.
- The Town subsequently enacted a Short-Term Rental Ordinance (STRO), requiring disclosure, licensing, and compliance for short-term rentals, but did not provide an appeals process for denied applications.
- The Town denied 15 Langsford’s applications for licenses, classifying the rentals as a hotel/inn rather than as "legally existing residential dwelling units."
- 15 Langsford appealed under Maine Rule 80B; the Superior Court vacated the denial, finding the units qualified for licenses. The Town appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 80B permit judicial review of the denial without an ordinance-based appeals process? | Review is available by law as denial is a refusal to perform a ministerial act (mandamus grounds). | No statutory appeal available, so no jurisdiction for Rule 80B review. | Yes; review is available by mandamus, so Rule 80B applies. |
| Did the CEO err in concluding the units were not "legally existing residential dwelling units"? | Units were approved as residential under prior ordinances and used for short-term rental as required by the STRO. | Units, managed/advertised like a hotel/inn, were neither "legally existing" nor "residential" due to violation of land use rules. | Yes; units fit the definition under LUO and STRO, so denial was incorrect. |
| Does advertising/management by resort company affect license eligibility? | Management/advertising is irrelevant under STRO criteria. | It proves operation as a hotel, disqualifying units from a rental license. | Management/advertising are not determinative; only definitions in the ordinances matter. |
| Did the prior condominium declaration prohibiting transient rentals bar eligibility? | Declaration was amended before prohibited use, removing the bar. | Prior bar supports ineligibility for short-term licensing. | Amendment before relevant period means prohibition is not an obstacle. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 21 A.3d 115 (Me. 2011) (Rule 80B as exclusive avenue for judicial review of municipal licensing decisions)
- Lyons v. Bd. of Dirs. of Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 43, 503 A.2d 233 (Me. 1986) (Rule 80B is procedural, jurisdiction must be otherwise established)
- Carter v. Wilkins, 203 A.2d 682 (Me. 1964) (Certiorari applies to discretionary quasi-judicial governmental actions)
- Casino Motor Co. v. Needham, 118 A.2d 781 (Me. 1955) (Mandamus available to compel issuance of municipal permit when denial is unlawful)
- Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 828 A.2d 768 (Me. 2003) (Distinguishing hotels from residential units based on definition and occupancy)