Case Title: Balano v. Town of Kittery

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017 ME 110

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 110 
Docket: 
Yor-16-248 
Submitted 
 
On Briefs: April 27, 2017 
Decided: 
June 6, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
RICHARD M. BALANO 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF KITTERY et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Richard M. Balano appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court 
(York County, O’Neil, J.) affirming the Town of Kittery Planning Board’s 
decision to approve a site plan application for development of a hotel on 
Route 1.  M.R. Civ. P. 80B(n); M.R. App. P. 2.  Balano argues that the flat-roof 
design for the building is not permitted by the Town’s ordinance because the 
evidence presented to the Board does not support its finding that a pitched 
roof is not “practicable,” see Kittery, Me., Code § 16.3.2.11(D)(3)(b)(ii) 
(July 26, 2010); and that the proposed building will exceed height restrictions 
prescribed by the zoning ordinance.  Balano also argues that the Planning 
Board acted beyond its authority by effectively granting variances when it 
approved the roof design and building height.  See id. § 16.1.5.2(F)(3) 
 
2 
(designating the Board of Appeals as the municipal entity with authority to 
grant a variance).  We affirm.1   
[¶2]  “We review the Planning Board’s approval of the permit directly 
for error of law, abuse of discretion[,] or findings not supported by substantial 
evidence in the record.”  Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 2016 ME 89, 
¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114 (quotation marks omitted); see also Summerwind Cottage, 
LLC v. Town of Scarborough, 2013 ME 26, ¶ 11, 61 A.3d 698.  We accord 
substantial deference to “local characterizations or fact-findings as to what 
meets ordinance standards.”  Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106, ¶ 8, 8 A.3d 684. 
[¶3]  With respect to the roof design, pursuant to the Town Ordinance, if 
an applicant has “demonstrated to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that [a 
pitched roof] is not practicable,” the Board is authorized to approve a 
commercial building proposal with an alternative roof design.  Kittery, Me., 
Code § 16.3.2.11(D)(3)(b)(ii).  Here, the Board was presented with evidence 
that a pitched roof would present safety issues resulting from snow 
accumulation, and that mechanical equipment would be more accessible in an 
emergency if located on a flat roof as opposed to within the interior space of a 
                                         
1  We are not persuaded by the Town’s contention on its cross-appeal that Balano does not have 
standing to pursue his appeal.  See Witham Family Ltd. v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2011 ME 104, ¶ 7, 
30 A.3d 811; Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2010 ME 78, ¶ 12, 2 A.3d 284.   
 
3 
pitched roof.  The Board’s finding that a pitched roof is not practicable is 
supported by substantial record evidence, and because the Board itself was 
authorized to approve a flat-roof design in such circumstances, its decision did 
not amount to a variance.  See id. §§ 16.3.2.11(D)(3)(b)(ii), 16.2.2.  
[¶4]  Regarding the building height, the Board did not err in its 
application of the Ordinance’s height restrictions because roof parapets are 
not included in calculating the building height, see id. § 16.2.2 (defining 
“height of a building” and “parapet”), and approval of the proposed building 
height that complied with the Ordinance’s requirements is not a variance.   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard M. Balano, appellant pro se 
 
Duncan McEachern, Esq., McEachern & Thornhill, Kittery, for cross-appellant 
Town of Kittery 
 
Durward W. Parkinson, Esq., and Leah B. Rachin, Esq., Bergen & Parkinson, 
LLC, Kennebunk, for cross-appellant 275 US Route 1, LLC 
 
 
York County Superior Court docket number AP-2015-26 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY