209 A.3d 102
Me.2019Background
- Cape Shore House Owners Assn. and Constance Jordan (Cape Shore) own property abutting Alan and Mara DeGeorge’s lot in Cape Elizabeth, within the Shoreland Performance Overlay District (SPOD).
- The DeGeorges applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to raze a nonconforming house and replace it with a new house that would increase elevation by ~7 feet (to ~30–35 feet).
- Cape Shore testified at the ZBA hearing opposing the proposal on view-impact grounds; the ZBA unanimously approved the DeGeorges’ application and later issued supplemental findings after remand.
- Cape Shore filed an amended three-count complaint: (1) a Rule 80B appeal challenging the ZBA decision, (2) a declaratory-judgment claim asserting the municipal 35-foot ordinance provision is preempted by the state Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act, and (3) trespass against the DeGeorges.
- The Superior Court dismissed Count 2 as duplicative of the Rule 80B appeal and dismissed Count 3; it then affirmed the ZBA decision on the Rule 80B claim. Cape Shore appealed only the dismissal of Count 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cape Shore’s declaratory-judgment claim (that the municipal 35-foot rule is preempted by state law) was an independent action or duplicative of the Rule 80B appeal | The declaratory judgment was a proper independent claim seeking invalidation of the municipal height rule under state law | The declaratory claim was duplicative because the same legal preemption issue and relief were subsumed in the Rule 80B administrative appeal; Rule 80B is the proper vehicle | Court affirmed: dismissal not an abuse of discretion — declaratory claim was not independent and was duplicative of the 80B appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 169 A.3d 396 (Me. 2017) (framework for drawing facts from the administrative record)
- Baker’s Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 743 A.2d 237 (Me. 2000) (distinguishes court acting in appellate vs. trial capacities when complaints mix 80B and independent claims)
- Kane v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 960 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2008) (standard: dismissing independent claims as duplicative of 80B reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 750 A.2d 577 (Me. 2000) (affirming dismissal of claims duplicative of Rule 80B appeal)
- Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 868 A.2d 172 (Me. 2005) (declaratory relief appropriate for anticipatory challenges, but not after agency adjudication where 80B governs)
- Wolfram v. Town of N. Haven, 163 A.3d 835 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for 80B appeals)
- Dragomir v. Spring Harbor Hosp., 970 A.2d 310 (Me. 2009) (issues not briefed are deemed withdrawn on appeal)
- Laqualia v. Laqualia, 30 A.3d 838 (Me. 2011) (court will not consider arguments raised for first time at oral argument)