Osprey Family Trust v. Town of Owls Head
141 A.3d 1114
| Me. | 2016Background
- Douglas Johnson, trustee of the Osprey Family Trust, applied to replace a dilapidated 1950s shorefront deckhouse with a new single-family residence and an addition; part of the property lies within the SZO 75-foot setback and abuts a wetland requiring DEP permitting for development.
- The Planning Board unanimously approved the permit, finding the new building—relocated 15 feet farther from the ocean than the existing structure and sited to avoid the wetland—complied with setback requirements "to the greatest practical extent."
- Neighbors Delaney and Perry appealed to the Board of Appeals (BOA), which reversed the Planning Board, finding the Planning Board erred and the decision was contrary to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (SZO).
- The Superior Court affirmed the BOA, reasoning the Planning Board improperly considered the proposed addition together with relocation of the original structure instead of first determining how the original footprint could be relocated to conform to setback requirements.
- The Trust appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which concluded the Planning Board applied the wrong SZO provision (it treated the proposal as a relocation rather than a replacement) and remanded for de novo reconsideration under the correct SZO section.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Planning Board permissibly evaluated the project as proposed (relocation plus addition) when determining compliance with SZO setback requirements | Johnson argued the Board could assess the project as proposed, including the addition, in determining the "greatest practical extent" of setback compliance | Delaney argued the Board should first determine how the original nonconforming structure could be relocated/reconstructed to meet setbacks before considering any addition | Court held the Board applied the wrong SZO provision and erred by evaluating the combined footprint; replacement provisions (not relocation provisions) govern and the matter must be remanded for proper application and potential fact-finding |
| Whether the Planning Board applied the correct SZO section (relocation v. replacement) | Johnson relied on the relocation provision §12(C)(2) as governing the Board’s analysis | Delaney contended replacement §12(C)(3) applied because the old structure was to be removed and replaced | Court held §12(C)(3) (replacement) is applicable; Board used the wrong section and must reconsider under the correct provision |
| Whether evidence compels a finding that relocation without regard to the addition was possible | Johnson argued site constraints (wetland, swale) made further relocation impractical | Delaney argued substantial evidence showed the original structure could be moved further back absent the addition | Court did not resolve this factual question; remanded to Planning Board for de novo consideration and any additional fact-finding |
| Proper remedy for procedural error in ordinance interpretation | Johnson sought affirmance of Planning Board approval | Delaney sought vacatur of the permit approval | Court vacated Superior Court judgment and remanded with instructions to remand application to Planning Board for reconsideration under the correct SZO provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088 (Me. 2015) (municipal zoning BOA is appellate; review focuses on Planning Board as operative decision)
- Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 868 A.2d 161 (Me. 2005) (standard of review for Planning Board factual findings and substantial evidence rule)