Fred Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088

Background

Wayne and Michelle McClellan applied for conditional use permits to build a disc‑golf course on two parcels abutting Fred Fitanides’ campground; the site lies partly in B‑6, B‑2a, and Resource Protection (RP) districts and partially within an MHP Overlay area.
The Planning Board held hearings and granted conditional approval in May 2013 for uses in the RP and B‑6 districts; one condition delegated approval of “minor” plan changes to the City Planner.
Fitanides appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which affirmed most of the Planning Board but remanded to amend the delegation condition. The Planning Board declined to change the condition; ZBA later denied Fitanides’ appeals on those follow‑up matters.
Fitanides brought consolidated Rule 80B actions in Superior Court challenging the ZBA decisions; the court affirmed. He appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed directly the Planning Board’s operative decision and addressed: (1) whether delegation to the City Planner was authorized by the ordinance; (2) whether the MHP Overlay applied; (3) whether procedural/due‑process defects prejudiced Fitanides.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fitanides)	Defendant's Argument (City/McClellans)	Held
Delegation of authority to City Planner to approve minor changes	Ordinance does not authorize City Planner to approve minor deviations from conditional use plans; delegation unlawful	Ordinance permits Planning Board to attach conditions and other provisions already delegate similar minor approvals to City Planner	Court: Delegation consistent with ordinance language and parallel provisions; valid condition
Applicability of Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay	MHP Overlay restrictions apply and required an additional conditional use permit	MHP Overlay applies only after a mobile home park is actually approved; not applicable here	Court: MHP Overlay does not apply absent an approved mobile home park; no additional permit required
Planning Board’s failure to follow ZBA remand	Board acted improperly by disregarding ZBA instruction to amend condition	Review focuses on operative Planning Board decision granting permits; procedural remand error does not change substantive review	Court: Board improperly ignored ZBA remand, but that procedural error did not affect the validity of the Planning Board’s operative permit decision
Due process / bias from City Planner email to ZBA	Email disparaging Fitanides showed bias and prejudiced his appeals	Although improper and unprofessional, email did not show ZBA members were biased or that Fitanides was prejudiced	Court: Email inappropriate but no evidence it influenced ZBA; no due process violation proven

Key Cases Cited

Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 868 A.2d 161 (Maine 2005) (direct review of municipal operative decision under Rule 80B)
Mills v. Town of Eliot, 955 A.2d 258 (Maine 2008) (ZBA acts in appellate capacity)
Sproul v. Town of Boothbay Harbor, 746 A.2d 368 (Maine 2000) (standard of review: error of law, abuse of discretion, or lack of substantial evidence)
Crosby v. Town of Belgrade, 562 A.2d 1228 (Maine 1989) (municipal boards bound by prior adjudications of zoning board of appeals)
Wister v. Town of Mount Desert, 974 A.2d 903 (Maine 2009) (ordinance interpretation reviewed de novo)
Friends of Congress Square Park v. City of Portland, 91 A.3d 601 (Maine 2014) (plain‑meaning approach to ordinance interpretation)
Lane Const. Corp. v. Town of Washington, 942 A.2d 1202 (Maine 2008) (use‑classification under zoning is question of law)
White v. Town of Hollis, 589 A.2d 46 (Maine 1991) (no reversal where plaintiff fails to show prejudice from procedural defects)
Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898 (Maine 1993) (bias of non‑board municipal officer does not automatically impute bias to zoning board)
Cope v. Inhabitants of Town of Brunswick, 464 A.2d 223 (Maine 1983) (constitutional limits on delegating legislative zoning authority without standards)