Steven Wolfram v. Town of North Haven
163 A.3d 835
| Me. | 2017Background
- Nebo Lodge (inn/restaurant) applied in Oct 2013 to demolish a small existing "bungalow" on its undersized Village District lot and rebuild it as an enlarged "annex" with employee bedrooms, office, storage, and a food-processing kitchen; a separate existing "lodge" building houses the inn/restaurant and had been expanded in 2009–2010.
- The Planning Board approved the permit with conditions after hearings; Wolfram (neighbor) appealed to the Town Board of Appeals (BOA). Four BOA members recused and were replaced. The BOA affirmed the Planning Board in a written decision.
- Wolfram challenged the BOA decision in Superior Court on multiple zoning-interpretation and due-process grounds; the court affirmed and Wolfram appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
- Key disputed ordinance provisions: §2.5 (nonconforming structure enlargement—33% ground-area cap), §2.6 (restoration after destruction), §4.1 (guest house / 20% lot coverage), and §6.5 (conditional use standards re: adverse impact).
- Procedural facts: Nebo Lodge began demolition and reconstruction after Planning Board approval but before the BOA hearing; Wolfram alleged bias and ex parte communications but did not request a factual trial on bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 33% ground-area expansion cap in §2.5 must be aggregated across multiple nonconforming structures on the lot | Wolfram: expansions to the separate lodge (2009–10) must be aggregated with the annex so total exceeds 33% tied to the original lodge, prohibiting further expansion | Nebo/Town: §2.5 applies to each nonconforming structure individually; each structure may enlarge up to 33% of its own prior ground area | Court: Affirmed Town—§2.5 applies per structure; annex did not exceed 33% of the bungalow it replaced |
| Whether §2.6 (restoration after damage) prohibits willful demolition and enlargement | Wolfram: §2.6 prohibits restoration/replacement after willful demolition and limits size to original dimensions | Nebo/Town: §2.6 addresses unintended damage/destruction (fire/other causes) and does not bar voluntary renovation or enlargement governed by §2.5 | Court: §2.6 does not apply to municipal-authorized voluntary demolition for renovation; §2.5 governs enlargements |
| Whether the annex is a "guest house" subject to §4.1 (one guest house; ≤20% lot coverage) | Wolfram: annex functions as a guest house, triggering the 20% lot coverage limit | Nebo/Town: annex bedrooms are for employees and the unit is not a single-family dwelling; thus §4.1 does not apply | Court: BOA's factual characterization upheld; annex is not a guest house and §4.1 does not apply |
| Whether the BOA misapplied conditional-use standards (§6.5) regarding adverse impact on surrounding properties | Wolfram: annex use/site will have adverse impacts greater than permitted uses in district; BOA failed to properly assess cumulative/whole-property intensity | Nebo/Town: record evidence showed no adverse impact and some amelioration (indoor storage, fewer cars); no substantial increase in inn/restaurant intensity requiring whole-property review | Court: BOA's findings supported by substantial evidence; conditional-use standards satisfied |
| Whether Wolfram was denied due process by bias or ex parte communications | Wolfram: emails and contacts between Nebo/Town officials and applicant created intolerable risk of bias and procedural unfairness | Nebo/Town: record lacks evidence that BOA impartiality was tainted or that BOA decision was affected; communications were largely planning/permit compliance | Court: No demonstrable prejudice or evidence the BOA decision resulted from bias/ex parte contacts; due-process claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs, 153 A.3d 768 (Me. 2017) (deferential review of administrative decisionmaking)
- Brackett v. Town of Rangeley, 831 A.2d 422 (Me. 2003) (review standards when BOA acts as factfinder)
- Merrill v. Town of Durham, 918 A.2d 1203 (Me. 2007) (ordinance construction de novo)
- Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot, 946 A.2d 408 (Me. 2008) (ordinance construed as a whole; undefined terms given common meaning)
- Day v. Town of Phippsburg, 110 A.3d 645 (Me. 2015) (rules on construing provisions that restrict or allow nonconformities)
- Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 828 A.2d 768 (Me. 2003) (deference to planning board characterizations of ordinance standards)
- Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 102 A.3d 1181 (Me. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard for environmental/administrative findings)
- Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 82 A.3d 148 (Me. 2013) (burden on party seeking to vacate BOA decision)
- Zegel v. Bd. of Soc. Worker Licensure, 843 A.2d 18 (Me. 2004) (procedural unfairness and intolerable risk of bias standard)
- Fitanides v. City of Saco, 113 A.3d 1088 (Me. 2015) (biased statements by non-decisionmakers insufficient to impute BOA bias)
Judgment affirmed.