Case Title: Remmel v. City of Portland

Citation: 

Docket Number: Cum-14-42

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2014-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2014 ME 114 
Docket: 
Cum-14-42 
Argued: 
September 9, 2014 
Decided: 
October 16, 2014 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ. 
 
 
CHARLES REMMEL et al. 
 
v. 
 
CITY OF PORTLAND et al. 
 
 
ALEXANDER, J. 
[¶1]  The City of Portland and 32 Thomas Street, LLC, appeal from a 
summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, 
Wheeler, J.) in favor of Charles and Kathy Remmel and other residents of 
Portland’s West End.  In its judgment, the court concluded that the Portland City 
Council’s approval of a conditional zoning agreement (CZA) did not comply with 
the City’s comprehensive plan and state statutes limiting conditional rezoning.  
See 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(2), (8) (2013).   
[¶2]  The City and 32 Thomas Street argue that the court failed to give 
proper deference to the CZA as a legislative act of the City Council and that the 
City Council rationally concluded that the CZA is consistent with the 
comprehensive plan and in basic harmony with existing and permitted uses in the 
original zone.  Because the record before the City Council supports its legislative 
 
2 
determination that the CZA is consistent with the comprehensive plan and because 
the CZA therefore does not violate relevant state statutes, we vacate the judgment.  
I.  CASE HISTORY 
[¶3]  32 Thomas Street, LLC, owns a parcel in Portland’s West End that 
includes a 140-year-old sanctuary, used from 1877 to 2011 as the Williston-West 
Church, and a connected 109-year-old, three-story parish house.  The sanctuary 
and parish house, purchased by 32 Thomas Street in December 2011, are 
historically and architecturally important; both structures are listed in the National 
Register of Historic Places and the City has designated them as historical.  The 
structures sit on the edge of Portland’s R-4 residential zone, directly abutting the 
City’s R-6 residential zone on two sides.   
[¶4] Portland’s comprehensive plan establishes that the purpose of the R-4 
zone is  
to preserve the unique character of the Western Promenade area of the 
city by controlling residential conversions and by allowing the 
continued mix of single-family, two-family, and low-rise multifamily 
dwellings and other compatible development at medium densities. 
Single and two-family dwellings are permitted along with 
single-family manufactured housing, except in National Register 
Historic Districts.  The residential conditional uses listed under R-4 
include sheltered care group homes, alteration of an existing structure 
to accommodate one or more units, and multiplex development 
(building with 3 or more units).  Other conditional uses include 
schools, churches, and day care facilities . . . . 
   
Portland, Me., Comprehensive Plan at 63 (Vol. 2, Nov. 2002).   
 
3 
[¶5]  In January 2012, 32 Thomas Street applied to the City for conditional 
rezoning of the property to permit renovation of residential space on the top two 
floors of the parish house and creation of office space on the building’s first floor.  
The office space was to be used by Majella Global Technologies, a software 
development company.   
[¶6]  The City’s ordinance authorizes conditional or contract zoning  
where, for reasons such as the unusual nature or unique location of the 
development proposed, the city council finds it necessary or 
appropriate to impose, by agreement with the property owner or 
otherwise, certain conditions or restrictions in order to ensure that the 
rezoning is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.  Conditional 
or contract zoning shall be limited to where a rezoning is requested by 
the owner of the property to be rezoned.  Nothing in this division shall 
authorize either an agreement to change or retain a zone or a rezoning 
which is inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.  
 
Portland, Me., Code § 14-60 (Mar. 4, 2013).   
[¶7]  The comprehensive plan establishes numerous goals that guide 
rezoning decisions, including promoting an economic climate that increases job 
opportunities and overall economic well-being, supporting neighborhood livability, 
preserving and improving the City’s housing stock, and preserving of the City’s 
architectural and historic sites and structures. 
 [¶8]  In response to 32 Thomas Street’s conditional rezoning application, 
Portland’s planning board held two workshops and a hearing, receiving a total of 
ninety-seven written comments from the public.  In May 2012, the planning board 
 
4 
recommended that the City Council approve the amended proposed conditional 
zoning agreement for the reuse (including for professional offices) and 
rehabilitation of the property.  In June 2012, the City Council held two public 
hearings on the proposed change to the City’s ordinance, receiving many written 
comments during the month.  The City Council ultimately approved the CZA on 
June 18, 2012.  
[¶9]  The CZA requires that (1) the office space on the rezoned property 
occupy no more than 2800 square feet of floor area on the first floor of the parish 
house, a space which constitutes approximately seventeen percent of the floor 
space of the entire property; (2) no more than fourteen nonresident employees 
work on site at any one time, and that the employees park in provided off-site 
parking; and (3) the office not generate frequent visits from clients or the public.  
The CZA also obligates 32 Thomas Street to maintain and preserve the historic 
buildings, including by rehabilitating and repairing the buildings’ exteriors.  The 
specific repairs and maintenance required in the CZA exceed in several respects 
the minimum maintenance required for historic buildings under the City’s Historic 
Preservation Ordinance.   
 
5 
[¶10]  The Remmels filed a complaint in the Superior Court on July 17, 
2012, seeking a declaratory judgment that the CZA is unlawful.1  The City and 
32 Thomas Street each subsequently moved for summary judgment, and the 
Remmels filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  The parties stipulated to the 
City Council’s record as the record for review.  Following a hearing on the 
cross-motions, the court entered a summary judgment on December 31, 2013, in 
favor of the Remmels, determining that the rezoning is inconsistent with Portland’s 
comprehensive plan and that the rezoning violates 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B) by 
allowing a new use that is inconsistent with existing and permitted uses in the R-4 
zone.  The City and 32 Thomas Street timely appealed. 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
A. 
Portland’s Comprehensive Plan 
[¶11]  We review de novo the court’s entry of a summary judgment.  Golder 
v. City of Saco, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 9, 45 A.3d 697.  We will affirm the grant of 
summary judgment “if the record reflects that there is no genuine issue of material 
fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”  Id.  
[¶12]  Our review of the City Council’s action must respect that “zoning is a 
legislative act” and must give deference to the legislative body.  Golder, 2012 ME 
                                         
1  The Superior Court correctly observed that a declaratory judgment, and not a Rule 80B appeal, is 
the proper procedure for challenging the City’s zoning decision.  F.S. Plummer Co. Inc. v. Town of Cape 
Elizabeth, 612 A.2d 856, 859 (Me. 1992). 
 
6 
76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697; Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112, ¶ 18, 
736 A.2d 241.  Judicial review of a conditional rezoning decision is ultimately 
limited to determining whether the City Council could rationally have adopted the 
conditional zone in light of the evidence presented to it, the various policies 
articulated in the comprehensive plan, and the mandate of 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8).  
See Golder, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697.   
[¶13]  The Portland ordinance explicitly permits conditional or contract 
rezoning that is “consistent with” its comprehensive plan.  Portland, Me., Code 
§ 14-60.  By statute, zoning ordinances and subsequent rezoning actions must be 
“pursuant to and consistent with a comprehensive plan adopted by the municipal 
legislative body.”  30-A M.R.S. § 4352(2).  When considering whether a rezoning 
action is “consistent with” a city’s comprehensive plan, a court must determine 
whether the City Council could have, from the evidence before it, found that the 
rezoning was “in basic harmony with the comprehensive plan.”  Adelman v. Town 
of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91, ¶ 22, 750 A.2d 577; LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 
528 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Me. 1987).  “[T]he challenger bears the burden of proving 
that the amendment is inconsistent” with the comprehensive plan.  Golder, 
2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697. 
[¶14]  A zoning or rezoning action need not perfectly fulfill the goals of a 
comprehensive plan; it may be in basic harmony with the plan so long as it “strikes 
 
7 
a reasonable balance among the municipality’s various zoning goals” or 
“overlap[s] considerably” with the plan.  Nestle Waters N. Amer., Inc. v. Town of 
Fryeburg, 2009 ME 30, ¶ 23, 967 A.2d 702; Stewart v. Town of Durham, 451 A.2d 
308, 312 (Me. 1982).  In addition, a comprehensive plan is considered as a whole; 
a municipality may conclude that a rezoning action is consistent with a 
comprehensive plan when it is in harmony with some provisions of the plan, even 
if the action appears inconsistent with other provisions of the plan.  See Adelman, 
2000 ME 91, ¶¶ 23-24, 750 A.2d 577; LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265. 
[¶15]  Portland’s comprehensive plan establishes two main goals that are 
relevant to this appeal: (1) promoting an economic climate that increases job 
opportunities and overall economic well-being; and (2) preserving the State’s 
historic and archeological resources.2  While the comprehensive plan does 
reference the importance of preserving the “unique character” of the R-4 zone, it 
does not expressly prohibit any nonresidential uses in the zone.  Instead, it lists 
several examples of conditional nonresidential uses permitted in the zone, 
                                         
2  The comprehensive plan also sets a goal of “encourag[ing] orderly growth and development in 
appropriate areas of each community, while protecting the State’s rural character, making efficient use of 
public services and preventing development sprawl.”  Although we reiterate that the Council’s rezoning 
decision need not perfectly fulfill each goal of the comprehensive plan , see LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 
528 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Me. 1987), the Council could have rationally found that this goal was also fulfilled 
by the CZA’s “neighborhood compatible adaptive reuse of historic religious structures . . . and productive 
use of such buildings for their long term preservation.” 
 
8 
including schools, churches, and day care facilities.3  It also includes group homes 
that have both a residential and a non-residential component.   
[¶16]  In the approved CZA, the City Council acknowledged the competing 
goals of the comprehensive plan and that office uses, to the extent permitted at all, 
must be permitted in the R-4 zone only in very limited and controlled 
circumstances.  Having considered and balanced the goals of the comprehensive 
plan, the City Council approved the rezoning only after attaching conditions, 
discussed above, to ensure that the CZA is consistent with the comprehensive plan.   
[¶17]  With regard to economic development, the City Council had evidence 
that the proposed use would allow Majella Global Technologies to remain in 
Portland and increase job opportunities in the technology sector, and would 
strengthen the City tax base and maintain property value for surrounding parcels.  
As for the City’s goal of historic preservation, the City Council had evidence from 
a professional architect and a representative from Greater Portland Landmarks to 
assist in weighing potential costs to the neighborhood against the benefits of 
allowing 32 Thomas Street to restore the property in order to preserve it.   
[¶18]  The City Council ultimately concluded in the CZA that the office 
component of the proposed use was a “necessary economic value and program 
                                         
3  We have held that the absence of language in a comprehensive plan expressly permitting a certain 
type of development should not be read to mean that that type of development is not permitted.  City of 
Old Town v. Dimoulas, 2002 ME 133, ¶ 19, 803 A.2d 1018. 
 
9 
element for the feasibility of the productive use of the building complex and the 
associated rehabilitation investments.”4  Whatever the property owner’s existing 
obligation under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the CZA is in basic harmony 
with the comprehensive plan’s historic-preservation goals and with upholding the 
“unique” architectural and aesthetic “character” of the R-4 zone.  Additionally, the 
CZA furthers historic-preservation goals by requiring 32 Thomas Street to 
rehabilitate, renovate, and maintain the property at higher standards than required 
under the Historic Preservation Ordinance alone.  
[¶19]  In light of the evidence before the City Council and the various 
competing goals of the comprehensive plan, the City Council had a rational basis 
for its conclusion that the CZA was consistent with the comprehensive plan as a 
whole, and struck a reasonable balance among the competing goals of the plan.  
See Nestle, 2009 ME 30, ¶ 23, 967 A.2d 702 (a zoning action may be considered as 
in basic harmony with the plan so long as the action “strikes a reasonable balance 
among the municipality’s various zoning goals”); LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265.  
                                         
4  To the extent that Remmel and other West End residents wish the Council or this Court to consider 
other possible uses of the historic buildings as shown by renovated church living spaces in other states or 
even in Europe, we note that such uses were not in the rezoning application before the Council, and based 
on the evidence before it, the Council made a balanced decision to permit the use consistent with the 
overarching goals of the comprehensive plan.  
 
10 
B.  
Existing and Permitted Uses in R-4 Zone 
[¶20]  In addition to being consistent with the municipality’s 
comprehensive plan, conditional or contract zoning must “[e]stablish rezoned 
areas that are consistent with the existing and permitted uses within the original 
zones.”  30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B).  Based on our interpretation of similar 
language in section 4352(2), this language can be interpreted to recognize that a 
conditional zone is “consistent with the existing and permitted uses in the original 
zones” when it is in basic harmony with those existing and permitted uses.  
See Golder, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697; LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265.  
[¶21]  We review the construction of an ordinance de novo, and the “terms 
or expressions in an ordinance are to be construed reasonably with regard to both 
the objectives sought to be obtained and the general structure of the ordinance as a 
whole.”  Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 80, ¶ 9, 946 A.2d 408. 
Nonetheless, a municipal body’s ultimate characterization of the structure of its 
own ordinance is to be given substantial deference, see Jordan v. City of 
Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9, 828 A.2d 768, and the question on review is whether, 
given the evidence before it and the requirements of 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8), the 
 
11 
City Council “could rationally have adopted the conditional zone.”  Golder, 
2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697.5   
[¶22]  Section 4352(8)(B) requires the municipal authority to determine 
whether the rezoned area is consistent with the existing and permitted uses “within 
the original zones.”  Uses contemplated in the R-4 zone can be divided into three 
general categories: (1) permitted residential uses; (2) permitted “other” uses, which 
are defined to include home occupations6 subject to the provisions of Portland City 
Code section 14-410; and (3) “conditional uses,” which are permitted only upon 
the issuance of a use permit subject to specific conditions, for certain residential 
purposes and certain nonresidential purposes.7  Portland, Me., Code §§ 14-102, 
14-103.  The proposed use is consistent with both “other” uses, namely home 
occupations, and “conditional” uses contemplated in the zone.  
[¶23]  Although the proposed use by Majella Global is unlikely to meet the 
requirements of a home occupation because it will house more than one 
                                         
5  The City Council’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error.  See Lane Constr. Corp. v. 
Town of Washington, 2008 ME 45, ¶ 13, 942 A.2d 1202.  
6  Pursuant to the ordinance, “home occupations” must not occupy more than a 500 square feet or more 
than 25 percent of the floor area of a dwelling unit, whichever is less, and have no more than one 
nonresident employee.  One of the permitted home occupations is “computer programming.”  Portland, 
Me., Code § 14-410(b)(6) (Mar. 4, 2013). 
7  We agree with the trial court that, to the extent that the City Council, because the property abuts the 
R-6 zone, considered that professional office uses are permitted in the R-6 zone, this was error. The City 
Council’s considerations must be limited to existing uses in the “original zones.” 30-A M.R.S. 
§ 4352(8)(B).  This does not change our conclusion that the City Council had a rational basis for its 
determination that the use is consistent with existing and permitted uses in the R-4 zone.  
 
 
12 
nonresident employee, the City’s designation of home occupations as a permitted 
use is relevant.  Home occupations have a broader purpose under the ordinance “to 
allow the secondary and incidental use of a residence for the conduct of 
appropriate occupations whose external activity levels and impacts are so limited 
as to be compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood.”  Portland, 
Me., Code § 14-410.  While the scale of the proposed use would no doubt be 
greater than that of a home occupation, the CZA imposes a number of restraints to 
ensure that the proposed office use remains limited and “neighborhood 
compatible,” including that the business must provide off-site parking for its 
employees and must occupy not more than seventeen percent of the property, 
reserving the second and third floors for residential use.8  These conditions limit 
the “external activity levels and impacts” of Majella’s business in the same way 
that would be required of a home occupation that is permitted in the R-4 zone.  
[¶24]  Conditional nonresidential uses under the ordinance are limited to 
(1) institutional uses, including elementary, middle, and secondary schools and 
                                         
8  The Council also recognized in the CZA that 
offices in residential zones, particularly in the R-4 zone, have been limited and any 
allowance of an office use in the R-4 zone should only be considered for large, 
unique, and historically significant structures which have not previously been in 
residential use, and must be carefully considered and controlled to achieve an 
appropriate balance between policies supporting neighborhood preservation and 
policies supporting economic development and preservation of the City’s 
architectural and historic heritage . . . .  
 
13 
places of assembly (defined to include community halls and private clubs); and 
(2) “other” uses including daycare facilities, nursery schools, and “sheltered care 
group homes” for up to twelve residents plus staff.  Portland, Me., Code 
§ 14-103(a)-(b).  While institutional uses, day cares, and group homes may serve 
the residential aspects of the R-4 zone, the language of the ordinance does not 
mandate that each use serve a greater community purpose.  
[¶25]  Group homes, day care facilities, and schools may provide incidental 
community benefits, but they may also be privately owned and ultimately may be 
as “commercial” in nature as a small software development company.  The record 
before the City Council included an extensive list of uses, including nursery 
schools and office space for non-resident use, that had reportedly been made of the 
property while it operated as a church.9  Taken as a whole, these previous uses, as 
well as permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zone, such as private 
clubs, day cares, and group homes, each have the potential to be more disruptive 
than an office with a maximum of fourteen employees and limited visits by the 
public.   
                                         
9  The list of activities previously occurring on the Property included operation of The Children’s 
Nursery School; operation of Motto Citizens (office space); administration of the Maine Gay Men’s 
Chorus (office space and a storage room); music recitals, rehearsals, and performances; church services; 
Waynflete Advance Leadership Training; Aerobics classes; meetings of an Alcoholics Anonymous group 
with more than 100 attendees; book sales; yoga classes; dance classes; and fitness classes.  Notably, there 
is no indication that these uses existed at the time of the rezoning application at issue here or that they 
were permitted at the time they occurred.  Remmel asserts that not all of these uses would have been 
legally permitted in the R-4 zone, except perhaps for the church’s ministry.   
 
14 
[¶26]  Based on the evidence before it and its mandate to consider existing 
and permitted uses pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B), the City Council 
concluded that the proposed use was in basic harmony with uses in the 
neighborhood, which it described to “include a mix of residential, commercial and 
institutional uses.”  Consistent with previous opinions involving a City’s 
application of its own ordinance to a legislative rezoning decision, see Golder, 
2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697; Nestle, 2009 ME 30, ¶ 23, 967 A.2d 707; 
LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265, the City Council had a rational basis on which to reach 
this conclusion.  
The entry is: 
Judgment vacated.  Remanded with direction to 
affirm the decision of the City Council.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Danielle P. West-Chuhta, Esq., and Patricia A. McAllister, 
Esq., City of Portland, Portland, for appellant City of Portland 
 
Mary E. Costigan, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellant 
32 Thomas Street, LLC 
 
Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esq., Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, 
LLP, Portland, for appellees Charles Remmel, et al. 
 
Orlando E. Delogu, Esq., appellee pro se 
 
 
 
15 
At oral argument: 
 
Patricia McAllister, Esq., for appellant City of Portland 
 
Bruce McGlauflin, Esq., for appellees Charles Remmel et al. 
 
Orlando Delogu, Esq., pro se appellee 
 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2012-312 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY