237 A.3d 175
Me.2020Background:
- Mark and Valerie Tomasino own a Sebago Lake parcel; Lake Shore Realty Trust owns the adjoining parcel; deeds grant each owner a 6-foot right-of-way along part of their common boundary.
- The Tomasinos obtained a building permit and, in 2018, the Code Enforcement Officer issued a shoreland permit allowing the Tomasinos to remove three trees on Trust land (within or adjacent to the easement) to build a gravel access road for their new home.
- The Trust appealed the CEO’s permit to the Town of Casco Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); the ZBA vacated the permit and, on remand after Superior Court direction, found the easement ambiguous and that two trees were at least partially on Trust-only land.
- The ZBA concluded the Tomasinos failed to show they had the right to remove trees located wholly or partly on the Trust’s property; the Superior Court affirmed the ZBA’s decision and denied reconsideration.
- The central legal question on appeal: whether a deeded easement—without a court-determined scope—constitutes sufficient “right, title, or interest” under the municipal ordinance to obtain a permit to remove trees from land owned by a neighbor.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deeded easement alone establishes the ordinance-required "right, title, or interest" to obtain a shoreland permit to remove trees on neighbor's land | Tomasino: possession of the deeded easement over the land is, as a matter of law, sufficient to show the necessary interest | Town/Trust: the easement's scope is ambiguous and may not include the right to cut trees; applicant must show the specific authority to do the act sought | Held: An easement whose parameters are unresolved does not, by itself, satisfy the ordinance; ZBA properly denied permit |
| Whether the Zoning Board may resolve the private-law question of an easement’s scope in deciding a zoning permit appeal | Tomasino: Board may accept easement interest and proceed to permit determination | Town/Trust: interpreting deed language and defining easement scope are matters for a court, not a municipal board | Held: Determining easement scope is outside the Board’s jurisdiction and expertise; such disputes belong in court |
| Whether unresolved property disputes nonetheless allow administrative standing to seek permit (i.e., is a colorable interest enough) | Tomasino (dissent): administrative standing requires only a colorable legally cognizable expectation; an easement is sufficient unless plainly inadequate | Town/Trust: applicant must show the specific right to use the property in the manner sought; mere ambiguous easement is insufficient | Held: Applicant must demonstrate the kind of interest that would allow the permitted use; an ambiguous easement does not meet that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaherty v. Muther, 17 A.3d 640 (Me. 2011) (easement terms governed by deed construction; ambiguous deeds require extrinsic evidence)
- Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (deeds construed by law existing when made)
- Walsh v. City of Brewer, 315 A.2d 200 (Me. 1974) (administrative standing requires lawful power to use or control property in the manner sought)
- Murray v. Inhabitants of the Town of Lincolnville, 462 A.2d 40 (Me. 1983) (a purchase agreement can confer sufficient interest to seek permits where applicant has a legally cognizable expectation of use)
- Rancourt v. Town of Glenburn, 635 A.2d 964 (Me. 1993) (applicant failed to show right-of-way included authority to construct a dock; insufficient interest for permit)
- Southridge Corp. v. Board of Environmental Protection, 655 A.2d 345 (Me. 1995) (pending adverse possession claim can confer standing to seek permits)
- Rockland Plaza Realty Corp. v. La Verdiere's Enters., Inc., 531 A.2d 1272 (Me. 1987) (municipal boards are not the proper forum to determine private property rights)