Golder v. City of Saco, 45 A.3d 697

Estates at Bay View, LLC purchased 9.42 acres in Saco with a 41,800-square-foot inn and adjacent public beach access.
Bay View sought a contract zone amendment to permit a 14-lot subdivision with smaller lots than the surrounding district.
The City Council approved the contract zone with conditions relating to beach access, parking, a sidewalk, a public restroom, and beach property conveyance.
Neighbors (Golder and others) filed a five-count complaint challenging the CZA and the subdivision/site plan; several counts sought to invalidate the contract zoning under 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8).
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City and Bay View on certain counts, dismissed others, and held the CZA complied with § 4352(8)(C); the Neighbors appeal.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the CZA provisions relating to development and public beach accessibility were permissible under the statute and that zoning acts are legislative, with limited judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CZA complies with 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(C).	Neighbors contend off-site conditions exceed relation to development.	City/Bay View argue off-site conditions relate to development and public use.	Yes; provisions relate to development and are permissible.

Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112 (Me. 1999) (zoning review respects legislative judgment; separation of powers)
LaBonta v. City of Waterville, A.2d 1265 (Me. 1987) (test for comprehensive plan harmony; deference to legislative body)
Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91 (Me. 2000) (burden to prove inconsistency in zoning amendments)
Vella v. Town of Camden, 677 A.2d 1051 (Me. 1996) (limits on judicial substitution of judgment in zoning)
McMillan v. City of Portland, 2005 WL 6000897 (Me. Super. LEXIS 164) (summary judgment in zoning context; court examines rationality with evidence before council)