Case Title: Olson v. Town of Yarmouth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 27

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2018-02-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 27 
Docket: 
Cum-17-274 
Argued: 
December 13, 2017 
Decided: 
February 22, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
FREDERICK OLSON et al. 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF YARMOUTH et al. 
 
 
HUMPHREY, J. 
[¶1]  Frederick Olson and Leora Rabin appeal from a judgment of the 
Superior Court (Cumberland County, Warren, J.) affirming, pursuant to M.R. 
Civ. P. 80B, the Town of Yarmouth Planning Board’s approval of a site plan 
application by Portland Cellular Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon), 
to install wireless communication equipment on a tower and site owned by the 
Yarmouth Water District.  Olson and Rabin argue that Verizon’s application did 
not comply with Yarmouth’s Zoning Ordinance because (1) the Yarmouth 
Water District site was subject to a presumption of unsuitability that Verizon 
failed to overcome, and (2) Verizon did not present sufficient evidence that it 
investigated other technically feasible sites.  Because the Board did not err by 
 
2 
concluding that Verizon’s application complied with the relevant provisions of 
the Zoning Ordinance, we affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  In 2001, Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint) submitted a site plan 
application to the Town of Yarmouth in which it applied to install a wireless 
communication antenna array on a water tower owned by the Yarmouth Water 
District and to install equipment cabinets on the ground near the tower.  The 
Planning Board denied the application because it did not meet zoning and site 
plan ordinance standards.  In April 2016, Verizon applied to the Planning Board 
for a similar use at the same site.   
[¶3]  At a public meeting on May 25, 2016, the Planning Board reviewed 
Verizon’s plan.  The Planning Board and neighboring residents, including Olson 
and Rabin, questioned the location of the equipment enclosure and the related 
visual, noise, and health effects on the neighborhood.  Olson’s property abuts 
the Yarmouth Water District site, and Rabin resides within 500 feet of the site.  
Verizon represented that it would examine other sites and look at the gaps in 
 
3 
coverage that led to the selection of this location.  The Planning Board did a site 
walk on June 15, 2016.   
[¶4]  On July 20, 2016, Verizon submitted its final site plan application to 
install equipment on the Yarmouth Water District site.  Verizon asserted in its 
application that, by installing the equipment on the Yarmouth Water District 
site, Verizon would “be able to fill the substantial coverage gap that it now 
experiences, and provide improved coverage and capacity to residents, 
businesses, and traffic corridors within sections of Yarmouth that are currently 
located within deficient service areas of Verizon Wireless’[s] network.”   
 
[¶5]  The Town of Yarmouth Director of Planning and Development 
(Director) submitted a report to the Planning Board on September 23, 2016.  
The Director detailed how Verizon’s application complied with individual site 
plan and zoning standards and concluded that the project conformed to the 
Town’s comprehensive plan and submission requirements.  As to the 
Ordinance’s requirement that Verizon investigate other technically feasible 
sites, he concluded that Verizon had “described [its] site selection process,” and 
the Yarmouth Water District site allows “the antenna to be located on an 
existing water tower which avoids the need to construct a new tower.”  The 
 
4 
Director recommended that the Planning Board approve the application if 
Verizon accepted the conditions that he proposed in his report.   
 
[¶6]  The Director’s report included the 2001 letter denying Sprint’s site 
plan application and the Planning Board’s findings on Sprint’s application.  The 
2001 Planning Board report stated that “[t]he size and configuration of the lot 
on which the water tower is located and upon which equipment is located is too 
small in area and too narrow in width and therefore too constrained for 
‘adverse impacts’ of the proposed equipment installation on the ground to be 
adequately minimized, per [Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. II(Z)(1)], in 
the residential context and close proximity to adjacent and nearby residences 
involved.”1   
 
[¶7]  On September 28, 2016, the Planning Board considered Verizon’s 
final site plan application at a public meeting.  The Planning Board asked about 
alternative sites that Verizon had considered, and a Verizon representative 
explained that it looked at the gaps in its area of coverage and then looked for 
sites that could fill the gaps with a minimal impact on the Town.  The Verizon 
                                         
1  The 2001 Planning Board’s written findings included a section entitled “Presumption of inability 
to accommodate similar equipment” that was stricken by hand.  Because the record is devoid of 
evidence concerning the rationale for removing this language and we review the Ordinance’s 
provision creating a presumption of unsuitability de novo, see Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head, 
2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114, we accord no weight to this section of the Planning Board’s findings. 
 
5 
representative told the Planning Board that Verizon’s “[g]oal at this site has 
been to . . . comply with the primary goal of the Town’s wireless ordinance, and 
that is to avoid the need for new towers.”  Verizon’s search revealed that the 
Yarmouth Water District site was the only appropriate location because other 
buildings in the area were not tall enough and a Central Maine Power pole 
would not fill the coverage gap and posed administrative hurdles.  The Planning 
Board unanimously gave conditional approval to Verizon’s application after 
finding that the plan conformed to the Site Plan Review Ordinance.  The 
Planning Board issued a written approval letter on October 7, 2016.   
[¶8]  On November 8, 2016, Olson and Rabin, who both appeared and 
commented at the Planning Board meetings, filed a complaint and petition for 
review of final municipal action pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B in the Superior 
Court.2  Verizon intervened in the action.  The court affirmed the Planning 
Board’s decision on June 1, 2017.   
[¶9]  Olson and Rabin filed a timely appeal.  See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(n); M.R. 
App. P. 2(b)(3) (Tower 2016).3   
                                         
2  Pursuant to Yarmouth, Me., Site Plan Review Ordinance, art. I(F)(3) (June 2017), site plan 
decisions of the Planning Board are appealed to the Superior Court in Cumberland County.   
3  This appeal was commenced before September 1, 2017, and therefore the restyled Maine Rules 
of Appellate Procedure do not apply.  See M.R. App. P. 1. 
 
6 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶10]  Olson and Rabin raise two issues on appeal.  First, they argue that 
the Planning Board erred in its approval of Verizon’s site plan application 
because, pursuant to article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) (Sept. 2016) of the Yarmouth Zoning 
Ordinance, the Yarmouth Water District site was presumed to be unsuitable 
and Verizon failed to overcome that presumption.  Second, they contend that 
there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding 
that Verizon investigated other technically feasible sites, as required by 
Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. II(Z)(9)(c) (Sept. 2016).   
[¶11]  “We review the Planning Board’s approval of the [site plan 
application] 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).  
“Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that 
evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion.”  Id. (quotation marks omitted).  
“Although interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law, we accord 
substantial deference to the Planning Board’s characterizations and 
fact-findings as to what meets ordinance standards.”  Bizier v. Town of Turner, 
2011 ME 116, ¶ 8, 32 A.3d 1048 (quotation marks omitted).  When interpreting 
 
7 
an ordinance de novo, “we first evaluate the plain meaning of the Ordinance 
and, if the meaning is clear, [we] need not look beyond the words themselves.  
We construe the terms of an ordinance reasonably, considering its purposes 
and structure and to avoid absurd or illogical results.”  Fryeburg Tr. v. Town of 
Fryeburg, 2016 ME 174, ¶ 5, 151 A.3d 933 (citation omitted) (quotation marks 
omitted).  Olson and Rabin bear the burden of persuasion on appeal because 
they seek to vacate the Planning Board’s decision.  See Bizier, 2011 ME 116, ¶ 8, 
32 A.3d 1048. 
A. 
Application of the Presumption of Unsuitability 
 
[¶12]  We first consider Olson and Rabin’s argument that, pursuant to 
article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) of the Ordinance, the Planning Board’s 2001 denial of 
Sprint’s application to install a wireless communication antenna array and 
associated equipment cabinets on the Yarmouth Water District site created a 
rebuttable presumption that the site was unsuitable to accommodate Verizon’s 
proposal.   
[¶13]  Article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) states: 
Once 
the 
Planning 
Board 
has 
determined 
that 
telecommunications equipment proposed by the applicant cannot 
be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or Alternative 
Tower Structure, each tower or Alternative Tower Structure so 
found is presumed unable to accommodate similar equipment that 
may be proposed in the future unless the Board determines, after 
 
8 
additional information is provided, that new technology or other 
considerations enables the existing or approved tower or 
Alternative Tower Structure to accommodate the equipment. 
 
Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. II(Z)(4)(a)(3).   
 
[¶14]  Olson and Rabin argue that Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, 
art. II(Z)(4) (Sept. 2016)4 broadly addresses co-location requirements and is 
                                         
4  Article II(Z)(4) provides:   
4.  Co-location requirements 
 a. On existing towers: 
 
(1) 
Applicants for site plan review for a new wireless communication tower 
must send written notice by pre-paid first class United States mail to all 
other such tower and Alternative Tower Structure owners and licensed 
wireless communication providers in the Town utilizing exi[s]ting towers 
and Alternative Tower Structures and to owners of such towers and 
Alternative Tower Structures within a 1 mile search radius of the 
proposed tower, stating their siting needs and/or colocation capabilities. 
Evidence that this notice requirement has been fulfilled shall be 
submitted to the Planning Board and shall include a name and address 
list, copy of the notice which was sent, and a statement, under oath, that 
the notices were sent as required. An application for a new tower must 
include evidence that existing or previously approved towers and 
Alternative Tower Structures within the Town and search area cannot 
accommodate the communications equipment (antennas, cables, etc.) 
planned for the proposed tower. Such evidence would be documentation 
from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that: 
 
 
(a.) Planned necessary equipment would exceed the structural capacity 
of existing and approved towers and Alternative Tower Structures, 
considering the existing and planned use of those towers and 
Alternative Tower Structures, and the existing and approved towers 
cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent 
equipment at a reasonable cost; 
(b.) Planned 
equipment 
will 
cause 
electromagnetic 
frequency 
interference with other existing or planned equipment for that 
tower or Alternative Tower Structure, and the interference cannot 
be prevented at a reasonable cost; 
 
9 
not limited to applicants seeking to construct a new tower.  They contend that 
although article II(Z)(4)(a)(1) applies only to new-tower-construction 
applicants, article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) applies both to new-tower-construction 
                                         
(c.) Existing or approved towers and Alternative Tower Structures do 
not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can 
function effectively and at least in parity with other similar 
equipment in place or approved; or 
 
(d.) Other documented reasons that make it technically or financially 
unfeasible to place the equipment planned by the applicant on 
existing and approved towers and Alternative Tower Structures. 
 
(2) 
Shared use shall be conditioned on the applicant’s agreement to pay a 
reasonable fee and costs of adapting existing facilities to the proposed use. 
 
(3) 
Once the Planning Board has determined that telecommunications 
equipment proposed by the applicant cannot be accommodated on an 
existing or approved tower or Alternative Tower Structure, each tower or 
Alternative Tower Structure so found is presumed unable to 
accommodate similar equipment that may be proposed in the future 
unless the Board determines, after additional information is provided, 
that new technology or other considerations enables the existing or 
approved tower or Alternative Tower Structure to accommodate the 
equipment. 
 
(4) 
The Planning Department will maintain a list of existing and approved 
towers and Alternative Tower Structures, including name and address of 
owner(s), within the Town of Yarmouth. 
 
b. Construction of new towers  
A proposal to construct a new co-located communication tower taller than the 
maximum height permitted for a single wireless communication service must 
include evidence that the tower can structurally support a minimum of three 
(3) antenna arrays for each anticipated co-locating entity. (See Section II.Z.3.a 
Tower Height, above.)  
 
Prior to the issuance of any Building permits for a co-located tower in excess of 
the height of a single user tower, the applicant will submit to the Code 
Enforcement Officer executed agreements documenting commitments to 
co-locate from the number of co-locators approved by the Planning Board. 
 
Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. II(Z)(4) (Sept. 2016).   
 
10 
applicants and to co-location applicants seeking to install similar equipment on 
an existing structure.  Based on this reading of the Ordinance, Olson and Rabin 
assert that the presumption of unsuitability attaches to a site whenever the 
Planning Board has determined that the site is unsuitable for co-location.  Olson 
and Rabin contend that the Planning Board’s 2001 determination that the 
Yarmouth Water District site was “too small in area and too narrow in width” 
to accommodate Sprint’s proposal made the site presumptively unsuitable for 
any later application to install similar equipment at that site, and that Verizon 
needed to rebut that presumption before its application could be approved.   
[¶15]  The question to be answered is whether the presumption of 
unsuitability attaches to a co-location site only when an applicant initially 
proposes to construct a new tower, or whether it also attaches when the 
applicant’s initial proposal is to co-locate by installing equipment on that site.  
If the latter, a rebuttable presumption of unsuitability attached to the Yarmouth 
Water District site after the Planning Board denied Sprint’s application in 2001. 
[¶16]  As is the case with statutes, our single goal in interpreting an 
ordinance is to give effect to the Town’s intent in enacting the ordinance.  See 
Dickau v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 ME 158, ¶ 19, 107 A.3d 621.  We first determine 
if the language of the ordinance is plain and unambiguous.  See id.  Our 
 
11 
interpretation of the plain language is guided by “taking into account the 
subject matter and purposes of the statute, and the consequences of a particular 
interpretation.”  Id. ¶ 21.  We must construe the terms of article II(Z)(4) 
reasonably, by considering the purposes and structure of the Ordinance to 
avoid absurd or illogical results.  See Fryeburg Tr., 2016 ME 174, ¶ 5, 151 A.3d 
933.  After examining the entirety of the Ordinance, we conclude that the plain 
and unambiguous language of the Ordinance makes clear that article II(Z)(4) 
applies only to new-tower-construction applicants.   
[¶17]  At the outset, article II(Z) announces that one of the purposes of 
the Ordinance is to encourage co-location and “[p]ermit the construction of new 
towers only where all other reasonable opportunities have been exhausted.”  
See Yarmouth, Me., Zoning Ordinance, art. II(Z)(1).  Accordingly, article II(Z)(4) 
describes the process that new-tower-construction applicants must use to 
exhaust their opportunities for co-location before they can obtain Planning 
Board approval of their new-tower-construction application.   
[¶18]  No language in article II(Z)(4) states that the provisions apply to 
co-location applicants.  Instead, article II(Z)(4)(a)(1) expressly requires 
new-tower-construction applicants to undertake a search for existing and 
previously approved co-location sites that can accommodate the applicant’s 
 
12 
proposed communications equipment; article II(Z)(4)(a)(2) requires payment 
of fees if a co-location site is found in that search; and article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) 
creates a presumption of unsuitability if the Planning Board agrees with the 
new-tower-construction applicant that a co-location site is unsuitable, and the 
effect of the presumption is that, unless additional information is provided to 
the Planning Board, and the Board determines “that new technology or other 
considerations enables the existing or approved tower or Alternative Tower 
Structure to accommodate the equipment,” later new-tower-construction 
applicants proposing to install “similar [communications] equipment” do not 
have to submit any evidence to the Planning Board about the unsuitability of 
that particular co-location site when attempting to comply with article 
II(Z)(4)(a)(1).  Finally, article II(Z)(4)(a)(4) requires the Town to maintain a 
list of existing and approved co-location sites.  We reject Olson and Rabin’s 
interpretation of the Ordinance because it would increase the burden for co-
location applicants, produce the illogical result of decreasing the number of 
sites available to co-location applicants, and ultimately result in the 
construction of more new towers.5  See Desfosses v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 151, 
                                         
5  The Superior Court affirmed the Planning Board’s decision by concluding that 
article II(Z)(4)(a)(3) applies only “when there has been a Planning Board determination that 
‘telecommunications equipment . . . cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or 
Alternative Tower Structure’” and because the 2001 denial of Sprint’s application expressly found 
 
13 
¶ 16, 128 A.3d 648 (“[W]e must interpret [the Ordinance] to avoid absurd, 
illogical, unreasonable, inconsistent, or anomalous results if an alternative 
interpretation avoids such results.” (quotation marks omitted)). 
[¶19]  The Planning Board did not err in declining to require Verizon to 
rebut a presumption of unsuitability.   
B. 
Investigation of Other Technically Feasible Sites 
 
[¶20]  Olson and Rabin next assert that we should vacate the Planning 
Board’s decision or remand for further fact-finding because the Board did not 
receive substantial evidence that Verizon investigated other “technically 
feasible sites,” as required by article II(Z)(9)(c) of the zoning ordinance.   
 
[¶21]  The Board did not make specific findings on Verizon’s compliance 
with particular aspects of the zoning and site plan ordinances and made only 
the following finding: “On the basis of the application, plans, reports and other 
information submitted by the applicant, information from the public hearing, 
information and the findings and recommendations contained in [the] Planning 
                                         
that the water tower itself was an appropriate structure and the denial was because of the equipment 
on the ground, the rebuttable presumption did not apply.  We agree with Olson and Rabin that this 
interpretation was incorrect because the term “telecommunications equipment” encompasses not 
only the antennae on the water tower, but also the equipment on the ground.  However, it is the 
decision of the Planning Board that we review, not the decision of the Superior Court.  See Osprey 
Family Tr., 2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114.  
 
14 
Board Report dated September 23, 2016 . . . the Planning Board finds that the 
plan is in conformance with Chapter 702, Site Plan Review Ordinance . . . .”   
[¶22]  Planning Board findings must be supported by substantial 
evidence in the record.  See Osprey Family Tr., 2016 ME 89, ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114.  
The Planning Board had substantial evidence that Verizon had investigated 
other technically feasible sites and concluded that none was available.  
Although Verizon’s written submissions to the Planning Board did not contain 
information about alternative sites that it had considered, Verizon’s application 
included detailed information about its site selection process, and, during the 
May and September meetings, the Planning Board asked the Verizon 
representative about alternative sites that Verizon had considered.  At the 
September 28 Planning Board meeting, a Verizon representative explained that 
its site selection process consisted of looking for gaps in coverage and 
identifying sites that would fill those gaps and have a minimal effect on the 
Town.  Verizon’s representative reported that the only feasible site for 
co-location was the Yarmouth Water District site because other sites were not 
tall enough or would not fill the coverage gap.  The Director’s report to the 
Planning Board referred to the requirement of article II(Z)(9)(c) and Verizon’s 
description of its site selection process, and noted that “[t]his site allow[s] the 
 
15 
antenna to be located on an existing water tower[,] which avoids the need to 
construct a new tower.”   
 
[¶23]  Because the Planning Board’s finding was supported by substantial 
evidence, we will not disturb the Board’s conclusion that the application met 
ordinance standards.  See Bizier, 2011 ME 116, ¶¶ 8, 12, 32 A.3d 1048 (“[W]e 
accord substantial deference to the Planning Board’s characterizations and 
fact-findings as to what meets ordinance standards.”) (quotation marks 
omitted)).   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nathaniel A. Bessey, Esq. (orally), Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, for appellants 
Frederick Olson and Leora Rabin 
 
Philip R. Saucier, Esq. (orally), Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellee Town of 
Yarmouth 
 
Scott D. Anderson, Esq. (orally), Verrill Dana, LLP, Portland, for appellee 
Verizon Wireless 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number AP-2016-48 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY