Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisionsDecision: 2021ME38Docket: Yor-20-131Argued: April6,2021Decided: July13,2021Panel: MEAD,GORMAN,JABAR,HUMPHREY,HORTON,andCONNORS,JJ.
KEVINJ.HILL
v.
TOWNOFWELLSetal.CONNORS,J.
[¶1]AppelleeKevinHillsoughttwosetbackvariancesfromtheTownof
WellsZoningBoardofAppeals(ZBA)andwasdeniedonthebasisthathedid
notmeethisburdenofproof toshowthatgranting thevarianceswouldnot
altertheessentialcharacterofthelocality.Hill’sappealtotheSuperiorCourt
(YorkCounty,Douglas,J.)resultedinthecourt’srejectionoftheZBA’sdenialof
the variances, and an abutting landowner, intervenor Bradley Hastings, has
appealed. We vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and remand with
instructions to affirm the ZBA’s denial. The ZBA properly decided that Hill
failedtoshowthatthesizeandcharacterofhisproposedresidencewiththe
variances would conform with the neighborhood as zoned, discounting
2
grandfathered nonconforming structures, and would not degrade the
significantvalueofsurroundingenvironmentalresources.
I.BACKGROUND
[¶2]In2017,Hillpurchasedalotlocatedat12LobsterLaneonDrakes
Island in Wells.1 The lot is approximately two blocks from the beach and
borders on, and intrudes into, wetlands. These particular wetlands are of
special significance because they are contiguous to both coastal wetlands
withinthemeaningoftheNaturalResourcesProtectionAct(NRPA),38M.R.S.
§§480-Athrough480-JJ(2021),aswellastheRachelCarsonNationalWildlife
Refuge.
[¶3] Hill purchased the lot undeveloped and began the process of
obtainingthenecessarypermitstobuildontheproperty.Becauseofthelot’s
proximitytothewetlands,Hill’sproposedstructurerequiredavariancefrom
theTown“[t]oreducethefrontsetbacktoLobsterLanefrom20feetto10feet”
and“[f]orafreshwaterwetlandsetbackreductionfrom38.5feettonolessthan
25feetforrearsetbackatthestructure’sclosestpoint.”2Thesizeofthelot,the
1 We take judicial notice of the lot’s size, its location, and the characteristics of the abutting
propertiesbywayofGoogleMaps.SeePahlsv.Thomas,718F.3d1210,1216n.1(10thCir.2013)(collectingcases).Duringoralargument,weaskedthepartiesiftherewereanyobjectionstoouruseofGoogleMapsforthispurpose,andneitherpartyexpressedanyopposition.
2Pursuanttochapter§145-33(B)(1)oftheTownCode,“[t]heminimumsetbackfromtheuplandedgeofawetlandshallbe75feet,whichmaybereducedtotheaverageofthesetbacksofstructures
3
stateandlocalregulations,andthedimensionspotentiallyavailableunderthe
variances limit the house that Hill intended to build to a footprint of just
680squarefeet.3ThesmallfootprintofHill’sproposedhomeresultedinaplan
tobuildthestructureuptothreestorieshigh,withthegroundleveltobeused
forparking.
[¶4] In July 2018, Hill sought and received from the Department of
EnvironmentalProtection (DEP)aNRPApermit tobuild a1274-square-foot
structureonthelot.TheDEP’sorderexpresslystated:“Thisapprovaldoesnot
constituteorsubstituteforanyotherrequiredstate,federalorlocalapprovals
nor does it verify compliance with any applicable shoreland zoning
ordinances.”Thus,theDEP’sapprovaldidnoteliminateHill’sneedtoobtaina
variance from the Town’s ZBA based on its independent fact-findings and
conclusions.
within200feetoftheproposedstructureonlotsabuttingthewetlandsbutshallnotbelessthan25feet.”SeeWells,Me.,Code§145-33(B)(1)(Apr.16,1999).TheZBA’sfindingsoffactindicatethatthesetbacksfromthefourabuttingpropertieswithin200feetofHill’sproposedhomeare37.33feet,43.26feet,13.48feet,and68feet.Theaverageofthosesetbacksis38.5feet,whichisthereforetheallowablesetbackforHill’sstructure.
3 Although the ZBA’s decision indicates that the total square footage of the homewould be680squarefeet,therecord,includingHill’spermitapplicationtotheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,makesclearthattheZBAwasreferringtothehouse’sfootprint.
4
[¶5]InFebruary2019,HillsubmittedhisvariancerequesttotheTown,
pursuanttochapter§145-67(A)(3)oftheTownCode,arguingthathewould
suffer undue hardship absent the variance. InMarch 2019, the ZBA held a
publichearingonHill’sapplication that includedsubmissionsand testimony
fromtheownersoftheabuttingproperties—includingtheintervenorinthis
case, Bradley Hastings. One abutting landowner testified that Hill’s lot is
“alwayswet”andthatthereis“plentyofwaterinthatlot.”4
[¶6] On April 1, 2019, the ZBA voted on its findings of fact and its
conclusions.TheZBA’sfindingsoffactprovided,inrelevantpart:
• Structures on all abutting properties were built prior toadoptionoftheCodebytheTownofWells.Thestructureononeabuttingpropertyhasbeenrenovatedsince2004.
• Four abutting properties within 200 feet of the proposedstructure on lots abutting the wetlands have setbacks of37.33feet,43.26feet,13.48feet,and68.00feetrespectivelyfromtheboundariesofthewetlands. Theallowedaveragesetbackfortheproposedstructureis38.49feet.Oneoftheabuttingpropertieshasasetbacksmallerthantherequested25feet,whichissmallerthantheaverage38.49feet. [Hill]stated that only a two square-foot area can be built uponwithinrequiredsetbacks.
• Asurveycompletedin2012determinedthattheaverageofthe setbacksof structureswithin200 feetof theproposed
4ThereportfromtheDEPsubmittedtotheZBAalsodetailed“waterflowingacrossthesouthern
cornerof[Hill’s]lottowardsthelowerelevationsonthewesterncornerofthelot,”thoughthisisnottheportionofthelotwhereHillproposedtoconstructthehome.
5
structure on lots abutting the wetlands was 33.49 feet,updatedto38.5feettoreflectrecentremovalofashed.
TheZBAfurtherconcluded:
• The sizeof thestructure(680square feet)5wouldmake itmuchsmallerthanallotherhomesintheneighborhood.
• The impacts on and by the wetlands are unique for thisproperty incomparison toabuttingpropertiesbecause theborder of the wetlands is inside the area of the lot andvirtuallyallofthewetlands[are]inthesetbacks.
Basedonthesefindings,theZBAdeterminedthatHillfailedtomeethis
burdenofshowingthatthevariancewouldnotaltertheessentialnature
oftheneighborhood.
[¶7] Following the ZBA’s denial of his variance application,Hill
appealedtotheSuperiorCourtpursuanttoM.R.Civ.P.80B.TheSuperior
Courtvacated theZBA’sdeterminationand remanded to theZBAwith
instructions to grant the variance, concluding that Hill had met his
burden of proof, compelling the ZBA to issue the variance. Hastings
timelyappealed.
5Seesupran.3.
6
II.DISCUSSION
A. BurdenofProofandStandardofReview
[¶8]OnanappealfromaSuperiorCourtorderwherethecourtactedin
itsintermediateappellatecapacitytohearanappealfromamunicipalzoning
board,we“reviewdirectlytheoperativedecisionofamunicipality.”Toomeyv.
TownofFryeIsland,2008ME44,¶11,943A.2d563.Indoingso,wewillnot
“substitute [our] judgment for thatof aboard.” Id. “[T]he partywishing to
overturn the municipal decision,” in this case Hill, bears the burden of
persuasiononappeal.Toomey,2008ME44,¶13,943A.2d563.“[T]heparty
bearingtheburdenofproofbeforetheBoard...mustshowonappealthatthe
evidence compelled the Board to grant him a variance.” Twigg v. Town of
Kennebunk,662A.2d914,916(Me.1995).
B. ApplicableLegalFramework
1. RelevantStatutes
[¶9]Amunicipalboardofappeals“maygrantavarianceonlywhenstrict
application of the ordinance to the petitioner and the petitioner’s property
wouldcauseunduehardship.”30-AM.R.S.§4353(4)(2021).Theterm“undue
hardship” requires the party seeking a variance to meet four conditions,
7
includingthat“[t]hegrantingofavariancewillnotaltertheessentialcharacter
ofthelocality.”Id.§4353(4)(C).6
[¶10] Other legislation, including multiple statutes protecting and
conserving sensitive environmental resources, governs the use of this
geographicareaandHill’spropertyspecifically.
[¶11] This property lies within the Drakes Island Game Sanctuary.
12M.R.S.§12706(E)(2021).Under12M.R.S.§12701(2021),thepermissible
usesofpropertywithinasanctuaryarelimitedandaresubjecttorulesadopted
by the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries andWildlife. For example, in the
absence of a Commissioner rule to the contrary, with some exceptions, no
trappingorhuntingofanywildanimalorwildbirdisallowedwithinthearea.
Id.§§12701,12707.
[¶12] The second piece of legislation that affects this property is the
NRPA,whichgovernslanduseonandnearwetlands.TheLegislaturehasfound
anddeclaredthat
theState’s...freshwaterwetlands,significantwildlifehabitat[and]coastal wetlands . . . are resources of state significance. Theseresources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics,unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental
6Becauseallfourconditionsmustbemet,weneednotaddresstheZBA’sadditionalfindingthat
Hillfailedtomeetanotherrequirement,namelythattheneedforthevarianceisnotself-createdbytheapplicantorapriorowner.30-AM.R.S.§4353(4)(D)(2021).
8
valueofpresentandfuturebenefittothecitizensoftheStateand...usesarecausingtherapiddegradationand,insomecases,thedestruction of these critical resources, producing significantadverseeconomicandenvironmentalimpactsandthreateningthehealth,safetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheState.
38M.R.S.§480-A.
[¶13] Another piece of legislation that affects this area and Hill’s
propertybymandatingshorelandzoningis38M.R.S.§435(2021),inwhichthe
Legislaturestated:
ToaidinthefulfillmentoftheState’sroleastrusteeofitswatersandtopromotepublichealth,safetyandthegeneralwelfare,itisdeclaredtobeinthepublicinterestthatshorelandareasbesubjectto zoning and land use controls. Shoreland areas include thoseareaswithin250 feetof thenormalhigh-water lineof anygreatpond,riverorsaltwaterbody,within250feetoftheuplandedgeofa coastal wetland, within 250 feet of the upland edge of afreshwaterwetlandexceptasotherwiseprovidedinsection438-A,subsection2,orwithin75feetofthehigh-waterlineofastream.Thepurposesofthesecontrolsaretofurtherthemaintenanceofsafe and healthful conditions; to prevent and control waterpollution;toprotectfishspawninggrounds,aquaticlife,birdandotherwildlifehabitat;toprotectbuildingsandlandsfromfloodingand accelerated erosion; to protect archaeological and historicresources;toprotectcommercialfishingandmaritimeindustries;to protect freshwater and coastal wetlands; to control buildingsites, placement of structures and land uses; to conserve shorecover,andvisualaswellas actualpointsofaccess to inlandandcoastalwaters;toconservenaturalbeautyandopenspace;andtoanticipateandrespondtotheimpactsofdevelopmentinshorelandareas.
9
[¶14] Under this statute, local ordinances must, among other things,
addressthecoastalmanagementpoliciessetforthin38M.R.S.§1801(2021).
38M.R.S.§438-A(2).Insection1801,theLegislaturefindsthat
theMainecoastisanassetofimmeasurablevaluetothepeopleofthe State and the nation, and there is a state interest in theconservation, beneficial use and effective management of thecoast’s resources; that development of the coastal area isincreasing rapidly and that this development poses a significantthreattotheresourcesofthecoast....
TheLegislaturefurtherdeclares“thatthewell-beingofthecitizensofthisState
dependsonstrikingacarefullyconsideredandwellreasonedbalanceamong
thecompetingusesoftheState’scoastalarea”andthatstateandlocalagencies
shouldconducttheiractivitiesaffectingthecoastalareaconsistentwithvarious
listed policies, including “[d]iscourag[ing] growth and new development in
coastalareaswhere,becauseofcoastalstorms,flooding,landslidesorsea-level
rise, it is hazardous to human health and safety” and “[p]rotect[ing] and
manag[ing]criticalhabitatandnaturalareasofstateandnationalsignificance
andmaintain[ing]thescenicbeautyandcharacterofthecoasteveninareas
wheredevelopmentoccurs.”Id.
[¶15]Finally,Hill’spropertyborderstheRachelCarsonNationalWildlife
Refuge,whichispartoftheNationalWildlifeRefugeSystem,anationalnetwork
oflandsandwatersdesignatedforconservationandrestorationoffish,wildlife,
10
andplantresourcesandtheirhabitats.See16U.S.C.S.§668dd(LEXISthrough
Pub.L.No.116-344).
[¶16] None of these environmental protection statutes precluded the
ZBAfromgrantingthevariancesrequestedbyHill. See38M.R.S.§439-A(4);
Petersonv.TownofRangeley,1998ME192,¶¶13-16,715A.2d930.Theydo,
however, indicate that this locality isofparticularenvironmentalsensitivity,
and they identify public health and welfare interests relevant to assessing
development in the area, includinghabitatprotection, avoiding floodingand
wetlanddegradation,andpreservingopenspaceandnaturalbeauty.
2. RelevantOrdinances
[¶17] ThepropertyHill seeks todevelop lieswithin theResidentialD
District,and,consistentwith38M.R.S.§1801, isalsosubject toaShoreland
OverlayDistrict.
[¶18]Chapter145-23,definingtheResidentialDDistrict,provides:
A. Purpose.ThepurposeoftheResidentialDDistrictistoretainthefamilyresortcharacterofDrakesIslandbyensuringthatfuturedevelopmentissimilartotheexistingdevelopmentinstyle and scale. Nonresidential uses should be limited tononcommercialrecreationalusesandpublicuses.
UsespermittedintheDistrictarelimitedtoagriculture,one-familydwellings,
keepingpoultry,andrecreation.Wells,Me.,Code§145-23(B)(June9,2015).
11
Dwellingsarelimitedtoaheightofthirtyfeetandthreestoriesandmustbeset
back twenty feet from any lot line abutting any street right of way. Id.
§§145-23(F)(5),(G)(2).
[¶19] Chapter 145-33, defining the Shoreland Overlay District,7
provides:
A. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to prevent andcontrolwater pollution; to protect fish spawning grounds,aquatic life and bird and otherwildlife habitat; to protectbuildingsandlandsfromfloodingandacceleratederosion;toprotect commercial fishing and maritime industries; toprotectfreshwaterandcoastalwetlands;toconserveshorecover;andtopreserveaccesstoinlandandcoastalwaters.
The setbacks required include seventy-five feet from the upland edge of a
wetland,“whichmaybereducedbytheaverageofthesetbacksofstructures
within200feetoftheproposedstructureonlotsabuttingthewetlandsbutshall
notbelessthan25feet.”Id.§145-33(B)(1).
7“Overlayzoningisaflexiblezoningtechniquethatallowsamunicipalitytolimitdevelopmentin
certainenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Anoverlayzoneisamappedoverlaydistrictsuperimposedon one ormore established zoningdistricts. Environmental overlay district boundariesmay bedrawntofollowtheboundariesofanaturalresource,suchasawatershedorfloodplain.Anoverlayzone supplements the underlying zoning standards with additional requirements that can bedesignedtoprotectthenaturalfeaturesinanimportantenvironmentalarea. Aparcelwithintheoverlayzoneisregulatedsimultaneouslybytwosetsofzoningregulations:theunderlyingzoningdistrictprovisionsandtheoverlayzoningrequirements.Auniquenaturaloraestheticresourcearea,such as a pine barren, wetland resource area, watershed, or tidal basin, can be identified andprotectedinthisway.”JohnR.Nolon,InPraiseofParochialism:TheAdventofLocalEnvironmentalLaw,26Harv.Envtl.L.Rev365,391(2002)(footnoteomitted).
12
[¶20]Insum,thepurposesoftheseordinanceprovisionsechothoseof
the relevant statutes, such as protecting natural resources and avoiding
flooding andwetland degradation,with large setbacks fromwetlands and a
focusonresidentialandrecreationaluses.8
3. TheNatureofthe“EssentialCharacteristics”Requirement
a. Themeaningof“EssentialCharacteristicsoftheLocality”isinformed by its context as a variance criterion and thepurposesandlimitationsimposeduponuses,structures,anddimensionswithinthedistrict.
[¶21]Wehavenotedthatwhenanordinancebroadlyprovidesthatuses
are permitted in a district as long as they do not alter the essential
characteristics of the locality, the breadth of that language results in an
excessive delegation of authority to the administrative body to determine
whethertopermittheuse.Copev.TownofBrunswick,464A.2d223,226-27
8 Another relevant ordinance provisionwould ordinarily be the provision setting forth local
variancecriteria.AnerroneoussectionoftheWellsOrdinancewasincludedintheappendix.Wecannottakejudicialnoticeofordinances.Millsv.TownofEliot,2008ME134,¶23,955A.2d258.Uponnotificationofthisomission,thepartiesconfirmedthatthewrongsectionhadbeenincludedintheappendixbutdidnotseektomodifytheappendixorotherwiseprovideacertifiedcopyoftheapplicablesection.
It appears that other ordinance provisions might also require additional fact-finding beforegrantingavariancefromsetbacksfromwetlands. ButtheZBAdidnotmentionthesecriteria,theappellantdidnotarguethatthesecriteriaappliedbeforetheZBA,and,again,wecannottakejudicialnoticeofanyordinanceprovisionoutsideanadministrativerecordorappendix.Wethereforefocuson the variance criteria provided by statute,which, as identified by the ZBA in its decision, areidenticaltotheapplicablecriteriaappliedbytheZBA,includingtherequirementthatthevariancenot alter the essential characteristics of the locality. See Wells, Me., Code § 145-67(A)(3)(Nov.2,1993).
13
(Me.1983). Thisdelegationproblemdoesnot arise in thevariancecontext,
however,becausethiscriterion,alongwiththeotherstatutoryconditionsfor
grantingavariance,constitutelimitationsontheZBA’sdiscretion.YourHome,
Inc.v.TownofWindham,528A.2d468,472(Me.1987).Inotherwords,inthe
contextofavariance,amunicipalityactingasa legislaturehasidentifiedthe
permitted uses, and the essential characteristics criterion is limited by the
ordinance’sprovisionsregardingthepermittedusesandthepurposesofthe
district.Seeid.(“[V]ariancesareuseswhicharegenerallyinappropriateforthe
zoneinwhichtheyarelocated.”).
[¶22] Additionally, “[v]ariances are meant to encompass those[]
situations . . . where . . . the application of the ordinance bears so little
relationshiptothepurposesofzoningthat,astothatproperty,theregulation
is,ineffect,confiscatoryorarbitrary.”SawyerEnv’tlRecoveryFacilities,Inc.v.
TownofHampden,2000ME179,¶18,760A.2d257(quotationmarksomitted).
Thediscretionof aboard in theapplicationof the“essentialcharacteristics”
variance criterion is thus limited not only by the specific provisions in an
ordinance defining the characteristics of a district, but, also, by the guiding
perspectivethatavarianceshouldnotbegrantedunlessthepartyseekingthe
variance can prove that there is something unique about his property that
14
makesadherencetotheuses,structures,anddimensionspermittedwithinthe
districtinconsistentwiththepurposesofthezoningforthatdistrict.SeeRadin
v.Crowley,516A.2d962,964(Me.1986)(“Theproperinquiry[indetermining
whether tograntavariance] iswhetherapplicationof thesideyardsetback
requirementtoRadin’slotarbitrarilydeprivesherofabeneficialuseofherland
withoutmateriallyadvancinganyofthepolicepowerpurposesunderlyingand
justifyingenactmentoftherequirement.”).
b. Thesizeofthelocalityiscontextdependentandnotlimitedtodevelopedusesandvalues.
[¶23]Theidentificationofthelocality,orneighborhood,forthepurpose
ofdeterminingcompatibilityofausewiththearea’sessentialcharacteristicsis
necessarily fact-sensitive and dependent upon the nature of the geographic
area the variance may impact. That said, the districts, as legislatively
established by the municipality, provide strong guidance in identifying the
localityorneighborhood. Here, for example, chapter§145-23, defining the
ResidentialDDistrict,referencesthepurposeofthisDistrictasretainingthe
characterof“DrakesIsland.”Itfollowsthattheimpactofanyvariancewithin
thisareaisarelevantconsideration.SeeJanssenv.HollandCharterTwp.Zoning
Bd.ofAppeals,651N.W.2d464,468(Mich.Ct.App.2002)(“Inconsideringthe
essentialcharacterofthislocality,onecannot,andshouldnot,justlookatthe
15
immediateneighboringproperties.Thecharacterofthelocalityisdefinedin
broaderstrokesthansuchamyopicviewpointwouldprovide.”).
[¶24] It also follows that the locality here includes the abutting
undeveloped Refuge and wetlands. See Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham,
754N.E.2d101,110-11(Mass.App.Ct.2001)(notingthat“neighborhood”isan
elastic term depending upon facts and circumstances, and that it was
appropriate for zoning purposes to include undeveloped beaches, coastal
banks,marshes,andwetlandsaspartoftheneighborhoodforthepurposesof
definingcharacter).
[¶25]Impactismeasurednotonlyineconomicterms,butalsointerms
oftheeffectonenvironmentalvalues.9Whiletheadverseimpactofavariance
onthemarketvalueofsurroundingdevelopedpropertymightberelevantin
assessing the effect on essential characteristics of a locality, the purpose of
zoningisbroader,relatingtothepublicinterestandwelfare.10Theimportance
9Inclusionofsuchvaluesinvarianceconsiderationsisreflectedin30-AM.R.S.§4353(4-B)and
(4-C),which allowamunicipality to enactanordinance relaxing the statutoryvariance criterionrequiring that the property be incapable of producing a reasonable return under certaincircumstances, see infra n.10, but limiting that relaxation with respect to wetland setbacks.Section4-C(E) also specifically recites that theremust be no unreasonable adverse effect on thenaturalenvironment.SeeRowev.CityofS.Portland,1999ME81,¶¶9-10,730A.2d673.
10TheessentialcharacteristicsprongwasfirstidentifiedinOttov.Steinhilber,24N.E.2d851,853(N.Y.1939). SeeLovelyv.ZoningBd.ofAppeals,259A.2d666,669(Me.1969). Insupportof itsdevelopmentof the essential characteristicsprong, theSteinhilbercourt citedEdwardM.Bassettetal.,ModelLawsforPlanningCities,Counties,andStates:IncludingZoning,SubdivisionRegulation,andProtectionofOfficialMapat12(1935),whichstated: “Thepowerofvariance fallswithin the
16
ofenvironmentalimpactisparticularlystrongwithrespecttopropertieslying
within an overlay district, which is designed, as noted supra, to protect
environmentallysensitiveareas.SeegenerallyRobertJ.Blackwell,Comment,
Overlay Zoning, Performance Standards, and Environmental Protection After
Nollan,16B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.615(1989).
c. Thevariancemustbecompatiblewiththedistrictaszoned,notjustsurroundingnonconformingusesanddimensions.
[¶26]Finally,keyindeterminingtheessentialcharacteristicsofalocality
aretheuses,structures,anddimensionsofsetbacksandotherfeaturesalready
existinginthatarea.Here,therelevantordinanceexpresslyprovidesthatnew
developmentshouldbesimilarto“existing”development,whichwouldinclude
nonconforming structures. That said, the analysis is not constrained to
considering only grandfathered uses and structures—otherwise, every
applicant for a variance could obtain the equivalent of grandfathered status
withouthavingtobeconsistentwiththemunicipality’szoningforthearea.
well-recognizedgeneralclassofrelaxationsormitigationsofthestrictnessofgeneralrulesinwhichbroad discretion is so commonly, as in this case, granted the administrator by relating it toconsiderationsofthepublicinterest,publicsafetyandwelfare,andsubstantialjustice.”SeeZoningand LandUse Controls, Ch. 9, Introduction, § 53A.01 (LexisNexisMatthewBender) (stating thatBassett“isoftenviewedasthefatheroftheconcept[ofzoning]inthiscountry”). Forahistoricaloverviewastohowenvironmentalconcernshavealwaysbeencomponentsofandjustificationsforzoning,seeEarlFinbarMurphy,EuclidandtheEnvironment,containedinZoningandtheAmericanDream:PromisesStilltoKeep(CharlesM.Haar&JeroldS.Kaydeneds.,1989)at154,168-74.
17
[¶27]InRadin,516A.2dat964,forexample,thepartyseekingavariance
arguedthatshewasentitledtoasetbackvariancebecausethegoalofzoning
was uniformity and her use would be consistent with the present
nonconforming uses in the immediate area. We stated that this argument
“misconstrue[d]boththenatureoftheuniformityimposedbyzoningandthe
methodbywhichuniformityisattained.”Id. Therelevantuniformityisthat
defined in the zoning ordinance; otherwise, “no municipality could ever
effectively impose restrictions on areas with a large number of extant
nonconforming uses, for exceptions and variances would of necessity be
grantedalmostasamatterofcourse.”Id.;seealsoSurfriderFound.v.ZoningBd.
ofAppeals,358P.3d664,686-89(Haw.2015)(reversingthegrantofavariance
from the setback requirement on essential characteristics grounds and
rejecting the evidence of similar nonconformity in the area as competent
evidencebecausethepresenceofnonconformingusesandstructuresshould
notserveasthebasisforfurthernonconformance).
[¶28]Agoalofzoningistoeliminate,notperpetuate,nonconformance.
Lovely,259A.2dat669-70;seealsoO’Toolev.CityofPortland,2004ME130,
¶15,865A.2d555(statingthatvariancedecisionsshouldnotbedivorcedfrom
“acommunity’scontemporaryplanningobjectives”). Hence,whilewewould
18
not go so far as the Hawaii Supreme Court in concluding that surrounding
nonconforming uses are irrelevant to the determination of the essential
characteristics of a locality, nonconforming uses are not determinative and
theirsignificanceisdiscountediftheyareinconsistentwiththepurposesofthe
existingzoningscheme.
C. ApplicationoftheLawtoHill’sRequestforVariances
[¶29] ItwasHill’s burden to prove that the variancewould result in
developmentcompatiblewiththelocality.Heshowedonlythattheimmediate
abutters’houseswerenonconforming,andtherecordlacksevidencethathis
housewould be similar in size and height to others. There are indications,
includingthesatellitephotosfromGoogleMaps,that itwouldnot. Buteven
withoutreferencetothosephotographs,giventhattheburdenlaywithHill,it
was within the discretion of the ZBA, which had knowledge of the area, to
concludethathefailedtomeethisburdenbasedontheevidencethathedid
provide, or the lack thereof. See Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town of Gray,
631A.2d 55, 57 (Me. 1993) (holding that local boardmembersmay rely on
their personal knowledge of the area at issue); Driscoll, 441 A.2d at 1029
19
(sustainingalocalzoningboard’srulingonessentialcharacteristicsgiventhe
boardmembers’familiaritywiththeneighborhood).11
[¶30]Therecordastotheenvironmentalimpactofthevariancesalso
does not compel the conclusion that the environmental purposes of the
Shoreland Overlay District would be met by allowing a variance from the
wetlandsetback.SeeRadin,516A.2dat964(affirmingthedenialofavariance
because the applicant did not demonstrate that the purposes of the setback
requirementwerenotadvancedbytheirapplicationtoherlot).
[¶31] Insupportofhisapplication,HillsubmittedacopyoftheDEP’s
approvaloftherequestedsetbackundertheNRPA.Asthatapprovalexpressly
provides, however, that approvaldid not verify compliancewith theTown’s
shorelandzoningordinances,andtheZBAwasfreetodeterminethatalarger
setbackwasrequired,supportedbyrecordevidenceregardingneighborhood
floodingissues.
[¶32]Setbackspreventovercrowdingonsubstandardlotsandmaintain
vistas.GiventhelanguageintheOrdinanceestablishingallowedsetbacksby
11Thecharacterizationofusesisamixedquestionoflawandfact,subjecttodeferenceonappeal.
Jordanv.CityofEllsworth,2003ME82,¶9,828A.2d768(“[W]ereviewtheinterpretationoftheordinancedenovo,butweafford theZBA’sultimatecharacterizationof thestructuresubstantialdeference.”).
20
averagingexistingsetbacks,seesupran.2,thegrantofavarianceherewould
further erode the setback required for any furtherdevelopment in the area.
Thislotsitsontheedgeofawildliferefuge,withwetlandsintrudingintoagood
portionof the lot. TheZBAwasnotcompelled todetermine thatno further
reduction in setback requirements was warranted in order to maintain the
environmentallysensitivevaluesofthelocality.12
Theentryis:
The judgmentof theSuperiorCourt is vacated.Remandedforentryofajudgmentaffirmingthedecisionof the TownofWells ZoningBoardofAppeals.
12 Asnoted inSawyerEnv’tlRecoveryFacilities, Inc.v. TownofHampden,2000ME179,¶18,
760A.2d257,aprimaryfunctionofvariances,asidefromavoidingarbitrarylimitsonpropertyuseunwarrantedbythezoningscheme,istoavoidconfiscation.Seealso2Anderson’sAmericanLawofZoning§13:1(PatriciaE.Salkined.,5thed.2021)(statingthatvariancesare“escapehatches”).Oneofthestatutorycriteriaforgrantingavarianceisthatthepartyseekingthevariancemustprovethatthe property “cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted.” 30-A M.R.S.§4353(4)(A).WetakenopositionastowhetherHill’sinabilitytobuildtheresidenceheseekstobuildabsentavarianceprovidesaviablegroundforaregulatorytakingclaimbutnotethattheZBA’sfinding that this variance criterion was met—a finding that neither the Town nor Hastingsappealed—wasbasedonanincorrectlegalconclusionthatthecriterionismetwheneverapropertyownercannotbuildaresidenceabsentthevariance.SeeToomeyv.TownofFryeIsland,2008ME44,¶¶17-18,943A.2d563.