Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 169 A.3d 396

Christopher Bond owns a nonconforming lot in Cape Elizabeth's Residence A (RA) District with a 672 sq ft one‑bed cottage.
Bond applied for a building permit to add two 12x12 "accessory structures" ("cubes") shown 20 feet from the property line and represented the additions would increase bedrooms from one to three; application was stamped "APPROVED" by the Town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO).
Neighbor Appletree Cottage, LLC appealed the CEO’s permit grant to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), arguing the cubes were not accessory structures and would violate the zoning ordinance and setbacks.
At the ZBA hearing Bond testified the cubes would be used for "incidental sleeping" and other uses (hobbies, office); the CEO testified he approved because the cubes were not "dwelling units" and thus were accessory.
The ZBA affirmed the CEO, making factual findings and concluding the cubes were accessory and setback‑compliant; Appletree sought Superior Court review under M.R. Civ. P. 80B, which affirmed the ZBA.
The Law Court held the CEO’s approval was the operative decision for appeal but the CEO made no factual findings in the record (only an "APPROVED" stamp), so the decision lacked sufficient findings for meaningful appellate review; the Court vacated and remanded for the CEO to make detailed findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the cubes are "accessory structures" permitted in the RA District	Appletree: cubes are not accessory structures; would create additional dwelling use and violate ordinance	Bond/CEO: cubes are accessory (not dwelling units); incidental sleeping and other uses permitted	CEO's decision lacked findings; issue must be remanded for CEO to make factual findings determining permitted use
Whether the CEO's decision is the operative decision for appellate review	Appletree: challenged ZBA findings but appellate review should consider operative decision per ordinance	Parties agreed the pre‑amendment ordinance made the CEO's decision operative	Court: CEO's decision is operative for review under the applicable ordinance
Whether the record supports meaningful appellate review of the CEO's permit grant	Appletree: ZBA record supports review and approval	CEO/Bond: ZBA hearing provided evidence supporting decision	Court: Cannot rely on ZBA record because ZBA was not authorized to hear de novo; CEO made no findings, so record insufficient for review
Proper remedy when operative administrative decision lacks findings	Appletree: remand for factual development and reconsideration	Bond/CEO: affirmation based on existing record	Court: Vacate and remand to CEO to make detailed findings on use and setback compliance; then proceed through administrative appeals chain

Mills v. Town of Eliot, 955 A.2d 258 (Me. 2008) (agency decisions require sufficient factual findings for meaningful appellate review)
Chapel Rd. Assocs. v. Town of Wells, 787 A.2d 137 (Me. 2001) (courts must not imply agency findings or substitute their own factual inquiry)