Daniel G. Raposa, Jr. v. Town of York, 234 A.3d 206

Background

Daniel and Susan Raposa own residential property adjacent to Joshua Gammon’s lot, where Gammon operates a commercial landscaping business on a parcel created by his predecessor. The predecessor had operated a lawful nonconforming excavation use.
In 2016 the Raposas asked the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) whether Gammon’s lot creation and current use were lawful; the CEO found she lacked jurisdiction over the lot-creation Shoreland issue, that the predecessor’s nonconforming use had not been discontinued, and that Gammon’s use was an intensification (not a change) of the prior use.
The Raposas appealed to the Town of York Board of Appeals. At a July 27, 2016 hearing the Board voted (3–2) to grant the Raposas’ appeal, but the vote and the relevant motions generated confusion about whether the grant applied to both the lot-creation and change-of-use issues.
On August 24, 2016 the Board adopted written findings that (1) Gammon’s landscaping is an intensification, not a change, of the prior use, and (2) the nonconforming use had not been shown to have been discontinued — findings that support denying the Raposas’ appeal on the change-of-use issue but that appeared in a document stating the appeal was granted.
The Raposas sought judicial review under M.R. Civ. P. 80B. The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision; this Court previously vacated an initial dismissal and remanded. In this appeal the Supreme Judicial Court majority vacated the judgment and remanded to the Board because the written findings directly contradicted the Board’s purported grant and thus required clarification and supporting findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a board may issue a single decision granting an appeal while adopting written findings that contradict that grant on a discrete issue (change of use).	Raposa: Board could not grant the appeal while adopting findings that, on the change-of-use issue, support denial.	Town/Gammon: The August 24 written findings clarified and narrowed the July 27 grant; they are the operative decision and are supported by the record.	Majority: Vacated and remanded — the written findings contradict the grant, so the Board must resolve the change-of-use issue and issue consistent findings.
Which Board action is the operative decision for appellate review: the July 27 vote or the August 24 written findings?	Raposa: The July 27 grant (the vote granting the appeal) should control.	Town/Gammon: The August 24 signed written findings and official record are the operative decision.	Majority: Did not settle this as the controlling question here; remand required because the August 24 findings contradict the purported grant. (Dissent would treat August 24 findings as operative.)
Whether the Board’s findings on change of use and discontinuation are supported by substantial evidence.	Raposa: Findings are unsupported and inconsistent with evidence, so they cannot justify resolving the appeal against the Raposas.	Town/Gammon: Record contains credible evidence supporting the Board’s findings that use was an intensification and was not discontinued.	Majority: The Board’s written findings, as drafted, support denial on the change-of-use issue and thus contradict the grant; because of the contradiction, remand is required so the Board can decide consistently and issue supporting findings. (The dissent would affirm, finding substantial evidence supports the written findings.)

Key Cases Cited

Boivin v. Town of Sanford, 588 A.2d 1197 (Me. 1991) (distinguishes unlawful change of use from permissible intensification of a nonconforming use).
Toomey v. Town of Frye Island, 943 A.2d 563 (Me. 2008) (defines substantial-evidence standard for municipal findings).
Grant v. Town of Belgrade, 221 A.3d 112 (Me. 2019) (reviews municipal board decisions and standards of review).
Raposa v. Town of York, 204 A.3d 129 (Me. 2019) (prior remand addressing jurisdictional dismissal in this matter).
Bryant v. Town of Wiscasset, 176 A.3d 176 (Me. 2017) (standard for reviewing municipal board findings/errors of law).
Carroll v. Town of York, 837 A.2d 148 (Me. 2003) (municipal decisions must be supported by findings).
Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088 (Me. 2015) (identifying the operative municipal decision for appellate review).
MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, LLC, 214 A.3d 1 (Me. 2019) (review deferentially, requiring competent evidence to support board findings).