234 A.3d 214
Me.2020Background
- Harold MacQuinn, Inc. sought Gravel and Site Plan Review permits in 2017 to expand its Kittredge Pit operation; the Planning Board denied both permits (Nov–Dec 2017).
- MacQuinn appealed to the Town Board of Appeals (BOA); the BOA treated the Gravel appeal de novo and the Site Plan Review appeal as appellate, reversed the Planning Board on both, and remanded directing issuance of permits.
- On remand the Planning Board issued the Site Plan permit (July 9, 2018); Friends of Lamoine and Tweedie Trust then filed an M.R. Civ. P. 80B complaint (Aug 8, 2018) challenging the BOA’s reversal of the Site Plan denial.
- The Business & Consumer Docket (BCD) vacated the BOA decision and reinstated the Planning Board’s December 11, 2017 denial of the Site Plan permit; MacQuinn appealed.
- Key contested legal questions: timeliness of Friends’ 80B filing, whether the BOA’s review standard was de novo or appellate, whether the Planning Board’s factual findings (especially groundwater impact under § J.10) were supported by substantial evidence, and whether the Planning Board should have waived a § J.1 criterion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Friends’ Rule 80B complaint | Friends: timely under 30‑A § 4482‑A because the Planning Board’s vote after BOA remand was the final decision | MacQuinn: untimely; Friends should have appealed BOA within 45 days under 30‑A § 2691 | Court: Applicable statute is § 4482‑A; Friends filed within 30 days of Planning Board’s final vote, so timely |
| Standard of BOA review (de novo v. appellate) | Friends: BOA acted in appellate capacity under the town Site Plan Ordinance | MacQuinn: default statutory BOA review is de novo; the ordinance does not clearly abrogate de novo review | Court: Ordinance confines BOA to interpretation/procedure issues and prevents altering conditions—this prescribes appellate review; operative decision is the Planning Board’s denial |
| Substantial evidentiary support for Planning Board’s groundwater finding (Ordinance § J.10) | Friends: Planning Board’s record contains sufficient expert evidence to support denial due to potential adverse impact on Cold Spring aquifer | MacQuinn: Record shows no adverse groundwater impact; denial unsupported | Court: Substantial evidence supports the Planning Board’s finding; MacQuinn did not show the record compels a contrary finding |
| Waiver of § J.1 criterion (landscape) | Friends: waiver not warranted | MacQuinn: Planning Board should have waived duplicative/inapplicable J.1 criterion | Court: Issue unnecessary to resolve because denial is supported on other grounds; MacQuinn’s waiver claim not addressed substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 169 A.3d 396 (Me. 2017) (limits on record review and standard in Rule 80B context)
- Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 141 A.3d 1114 (Me. 2016) (administrative‑record review principles)
- Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 868 A.2d 161 (Me. 2005) (operative decision depends on whether BOA acted de novo or appellate)
- Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick, 757 A.2d 773 (Me. 2000) (distinguishing de novo review from appellate BOA function)
- Mills v. Town of Eliot, 955 A.2d 258 (Me. 2008) (ordinance language may require appellate BOA review without the word "appellate")
- MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, LLC, 214 A.3d 1 (Me. 2019) (ordinance limiting BOA to interpretation/procedure supports appellate review)
- Veilleux v. City of Augusta, 684 A.2d 413 (Me. 1996) (agency findings sustainable where conflicting inferences arise)
- Anderson v. Maine Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 985 A.2d 501 (Me. 2009) (burden of persuasion on appellant and deference to agency factfinding)