2021 ME 45
Me.2021Background
- Namer placed a “Park Model” trailer on his lot without a permit; the Town CEO later issued an after‑the‑fact permit and rescinded an earlier notice of violation.
- Abutters Kimberly and Anthony LaMarre challenged the CEO’s action, arguing the trailer is not a “recreational vehicle” under the Town of China Land Development Code and thus not permitted as an individual private campsite.
- The Board of Appeals affirmed the CEO; the Superior Court (M.R. Civ. P. 80B) reversed; the Town and Namer appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the operative CEO decision lacked findings of fact tied to a reviewable administrative record and therefore was inadequate for appellate review.
- The Court remanded: the CEO must create a record, allow parties to submit and rebut evidence, avoid ex parte communications, and issue written findings and conclusions; the CEO must consider ordinance language (e.g., meaning of “placed,” vehicle vs. structure, and “designed to be towed”) when deciding whether the trailer is an RV and how the 120‑day rule applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the operative decision for review (de novo v. appellate)? | LaMarre: Board should review permit/decision complained of. | Town/Namer: Board may review de novo or treat permit as operative. | Ordinance language provides for appellate review; the Court reviews the CEO's decision. |
| Did the CEO issue a reviewable decision supported by a record? | LaMarre: CEO's rescission and permit lacked findings and identifiable record. | Town/Namer: Permit/rescission suffice to resolve dispute. | CEO decision was deficient; remand required for a written decision with findings tied to the record. |
| How to read section re: 120‑day placement ("placed" v. "occupied")? | LaMarre: If trailer remains more than 120 days it must meet residential requirements. | Namer/Town (as interpreted by CEO): Only occupancy for >120 days triggers residential treatment. | "Placed" means located/placed (not merely occupied); a trailer left on site >120 days must meet residential structure requirements. |
| Is the trailer a "recreational vehicle" under the Ordinance? | LaMarre: The Park Model trailer is not an RV as defined. | Namer: The trailer fits the RV definition and may remain with tires on ground and registration. | Whether it qualifies is a mixed question of fact and law for the CEO to decide on remand; if reasonable, the decision receives deference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Town of Eliot, 955 A.2d 258 (Me. 2008) (requirements for findings and substantial‑evidence review)
- Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 169 A.3d 396 (Me. 2017) (a permit without findings is insufficient for appellate review)
- Chapel Rd. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Town of Wells, 787 A.2d 137 (Me. 2001) (need for administrative findings to enable review)
- Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 868 A.2d 151 (Me. 2005) (ordinance language can demonstrate appellate review standard)
- Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 828 A.2d 768 (Me. 2003) (classification of structure v. vehicle is a mixed question of law and fact; deference to reasonable administrative characterization)
- Palian v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 242 A.3d 164 (Me. 2020) (remand required when decision lacks adequate record and findings)