234 A.3d 206
Me.2020Background
- Daniel and Susan Raposa own a residence abutting Joshua Gammon’s lot, on which Gammon operates a commercial landscaping business that his predecessor had used for excavation — a claimed grandfathered nonconforming use under York zoning.
- After the Raposas complained, the Town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) concluded (1) she lacked jurisdiction over the lot-creation/Shoreland issue, (2) the prior nonconforming use had not been discontinued, and (3) Gammon’s use was an intensification, not a change, of the prior use.
- The Raposas appealed to the York Board of Appeals on two discrete grounds: (A) the lot was improperly created (Planning Board approval required) and (B) Gammon’s use was a change of use (not merely intensification), which would void grandfathering.
- At a July 27, 2016 hearing the Board voted 3–2 to grant the Raposas’ appeal generally, but the Board later adopted August 24 written findings that (contradictorily) state Gammon’s use was not a change and the nonconforming use had not been interrupted.
- Both parties sought judicial review under M.R. Civ. P. 80B; the Superior Court ultimately affirmed the Board, but this appeal addresses a conflict between the Board’s grant and its written findings.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court majority vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings because the Board’s written findings directly contradict and thus do not support the purported grant on the change-of-use issue; the dissent would have treated the written findings as the operative decision and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Board may legally grant an appeal while adopting written findings that contradict the grant on a discrete issue | Raposas: Board’s grant on change-of-use cannot stand because the August 24 findings state there was no change — findings must support the decision | Town/Gammon: The August 24 written findings are the operative decision; they narrowed the grant to the lot-creation issue and resolve the change-of-use issue for Gammon | Majority: Vacated and remanded — written findings contradict the purported grant on change-of-use; Board must issue findings supporting its decision; Dissent: would treat written findings as operative and affirm |
| Whether the Board’s findings that Gammon’s use was an intensification and that the prior nonconforming use was not discontinued are supported by substantial evidence | Raposas: Evidence does not compel those findings; findings are not supported | Town/Gammon: Record contains evidence supporting credibility determinations and reasonable inferences favoring the Board | Majority: Did not resolve merits because of internal contradiction; Superior Court and dissent found findings supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Town of Belgrade, 221 A.3d 112 (addresses de novo review and reliance on record evidence)
- Raposa v. Town of York, 204 A.3d 129 (prior remand; reviews Board decisions de novo)
- Bryant v. Town of Wiscasset, 176 A.3d 176 (standard of review for municipal board decisions)
- Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 837 A.2d 148 (decisions must include findings supporting the result)
- Boivin v. Town of Sanford, 588 A.2d 1197 (distinguishes intensification from change of use; deference to Board credibility choices)
- Toomey v. Town of Frye Island, 943 A.2d 563 (definition and application of substantial evidence)
- MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, LLC, 214 A.3d 1 (standard for vacating municipal decisions)
- Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088 (identifying the operative municipal decision for appellate review)