45 A.3d 707
Me.2012Background
- Pike Industries operates a quarry on Spring Street in Westbrook, with Artel, IDEXX Laboratories, and Smiling Hill Farm nearby.
- Four Westbrook zoning ordinances (1951, 1969, 1973, 2004) governed quarrying as a special exception/conditional use; Pike never secured those approvals.
- CEO concluded Pike had grandfathered rights to quarry on about 32 acres but not to crush rock or run a concrete/asphalt plant; ZBA affirmed no grandfathered rights and lacked jurisdiction to resolve equitable claims.
- Pike, City, and IDEXX negotiated a consent decree to settle the dispute; Artel and Smiling Hill contested the decree's terms.
- Consent decree treated quarrying as grandfathered, imposed detailed performance standards, and created enforcement mechanisms that would supersede the current zoning ordinance.
- Trial court approved the decree as a final judgment; Artel and Smiling Hill appealed to a Business and Consumer docket.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City could settle land-use litigation by a consent decree declaring grandfathered use | Artel argued the City lacked authority to exempt land from zoning via a consent decree. | Pike and City argued home-rule authority and the power to settle disputes authorize such consent. | City has authority to settle via consent decree declaring grandfathered use. |
| What standard governs review of consent decrees affecting land-use ordinances | Artel contends the court should apply a fairness/adequacy standard specific to decrees affecting zoning. | Defendants rely on general de novo review and deference to settled compromises. | Court must apply five elements ensuring validity, fairness, and legality of the decree. |
| Was the approval process for the consent decree proper given intervenors' rights | Artel challenged lack of evidentiary hearing and exclusion from negotiation. | Intervenors had opportunities to be heard; negotiations were within prosecutorial discretion. | Process was proper; intervenors had adequate opportunity to be heard. |
| Whether the decree's performance standards are enforceable under 30-A M.R.S. § 4452 | The standards are enforceable as local land-use rules under § 4452. | Standards should be enforceable only if adopted as contract zoning or amended zoning ordinance. | Standards are not enforceable under § 4452; the decree must be remanded to permit implementation via contract zoning or ordinance amendment. |
| Effect of remanding on the rest of the judgment | Remand would preserve the decree's aims while ensuring legal enforceability. | Remand is necessary to cure enforceability defects. | Judgment vacated and remanded for proper implementation of standards through contract zoning or ordinance amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Auburn v. Desgrosseilliers, 578 A.2d 712 (Me. 1990) (equitable estoppel and enforcement in zoning context)
- Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence, 896 F.2d 600 (1st Cir.1990) (five-factor framework for evaluating consent decrees affecting public rights)
- Oeste v. Town of Camden, 534 A.2d 683 (Me.1987) (express limitations on municipal home-rule authority in zoning)
- City of South Portland v. State, 476 A.2d 690 (Me.1984) (land-use regulation and authority of municipalities)
- Vose v. Inhabitants of Frankfort, 64 Me. 229 (1875) (municipal settlement authority to avoid litigation)
- Lamb v. Town of Farmington, 2004 ME 50 (Me. 2004) (settlement of land-use disputes under municipal authority)
- Bates v. Dep't of Behavioral & Developmental Servs., 2004 ME 154 (Me. 2004) (settlement and deference in administrative proceedings)
- Peters v. O'Leary, 2011 ME 106 (Me. 2011) (statutory interpretation in land-use context)