James Hartwell v. Town of Ogunquit, 115 A.3d 81

Wayne C. Perkins applied to the Ogunquit Planning Board to convert a Shore Road–facing garage into a lobster pound; selling live lobsters was permitted in the zone.
Perkins anticipated cooking some lobsters on request, raising the question whether that activity converted the use into a prohibited “Type 3 Restaurant” or remained an accessory retail use.
The Board approved Perkins’s site plan and design review without enforcing all mandatory ordinance submission requirements (notably required building elevations).
Abutting landowners (the Hartwells) challenged the approvals; the Superior Court remanded to the Board for failing to apply ordinance requirements.
On remand Perkins submitted waiver requests for some site-plan materials but did not submit the required scaled elevations for design review; the Board again approved without making factual findings on the substantive use classification.
The Superior Court vacated the approvals (finding the lack of elevations fatal and deciding the substantive use issue for the Hartwells); Perkins appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Board required to enforce mandatory design-review submission requirements (elevations)?	Hartwell: Ordinance mandatory; failure to require elevations invalidates approval.	Perkins/Town: omission was harmless or within Board discretion.	Court: Ordinance mandatory; Board cannot waive or ignore required submissions; vacate design-review approval.
Could the Superior Court resolve substantive classification (retail vs. Type 3 Restaurant) on existing record?	Hartwell: Facts in record show restaurant use; court may decide.	Perkins: Board failed to make findings; factual disputes require board factfinding.	Court: Remand required — Board must make factual findings; Superior Court erred in deciding substance without administrative findings.
Is a photograph sufficient to satisfy required elevations for design review?	Hartwell: Required technical elevations were not submitted.	Perkins: Photograph should suffice in this minimal-alteration case.	Court: Photograph insufficient; required scaled elevations mandated by ordinance.
Can courts or boards treat mandatory submission failures as de minimis/harmless?	Hartwell: No — mandatory provisions must be enforced.	Perkins/Town: Failure is harmless error; should not compel remand.	Court: Courts cannot deem such mandatory omissions harmless; must follow ordinance or change ordinance.

Bizier v. Town of Turner, 32 A.3d 1048 (2011 ME) (appellate deference principles to administrative findings)
Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 837 A.2d 148 (2003 ME) (insufficient administrative findings require remand)