Case Title: Bizier v. Town of Turner

Citation: 

Docket Number: And-11-116

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT  
 
 
 
 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2011 ME 116 
Docket: 
And-11-116 
Argued: 
October 14, 2011 
Decided: 
November 22, 2011 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, 
JJ. 
 
 
SUSAN BIZIER et al. 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF TURNER et al. 
 
 
GORMAN, J. 
 
[¶1]  Susan Bizier and Philip Bizier appeal from the Superior Court’s 
(Androscoggin County, Clifford, J.) affirmance pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B 
(2011) of the Town of Turner Planning Board’s decision to grant Hannaford Bros. 
Co.’s application for a site plan review permit to construct a grocery store and 
drive-through pharmacy.  The Biziers argue the Board erred in concluding that 
Hannaford’s site plan relates harmoniously and in good scale with the natural 
terrain and surrounding development of the area as the Turner Zoning Ordinance 
requires.  They also argue the Board erred in failing to conclude that the Hannaford 
site plan would create an illegal back lot.  We disagree and affirm. 
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  Hannaford proposes to build a supermarket and drive-through 
pharmacy on the corner of Route 4 (Auburn Road) and Snell Hill Road in Turner.  
The record reveals that, to the west of the proposed site, John L. Jordan owns land 
in fee simple.  The Jordan lot currently has 233 feet of frontage on Snell Hill Road 
and encompasses Jordan Lane, a private street that provides Jordan and several 
other property owners with access to Snell Hill Road.  Hannaford plans to purchase 
a portion of the Jordan lot in order to complete its project.  Following the proposed 
sale, Jordan’s frontage on Snell Hill Road will shrink to about sixty-five feet, but 
his lot will still contain Jordan Lane.  The Biziers own a parcel, which also fronts 
on Snell Hill Road, on the other side of Jordan Lane. 
[¶3]  Hannaford initially provided the Turner Planning Board with a sketch 
site plan on May 13, 2009 and, in July 2009, Hannaford submitted a site plan 
review application to the Board.  Throughout the remainder of 2009, the Board 
considered the project proposal at workshop meetings, Planning Board meetings, 
and public hearings.  It accepted oral public comments during at least two hearings 
and written submissions throughout its review process. 
[¶4]  During the Board’s review, a group of concerned citizens, including the 
Biziers, formed the Turner Village Preservation Committee to express their 
opposition to the project.  The Committee retained counsel, hired consultants to 
 
3 
explore matters related to Hannaford’s proposal, actively participated in the 
Board’s review, and detailed its objections to the project. 
[¶5]  The Board voted to grant the permit with conditions on March 10, 
2010.  In considering whether the proposed Hannaford parcel would meet the 
Zoning Ordinance standards, the Board made extensive findings regarding the 
proposed site plan’s aesthetic and structural qualities.  Ultimately, it concluded that 
the plan would relate harmoniously and in good scale with the natural terrain and 
surrounding development of the area.  The Biziers and several other abutters to the 
site directly appealed to the Superior Court on April 7, 2010, pursuant to 
30-A M.R.S. § 4353(1) (2010) and M.R. Civ. P. 80B.  Following a hearing, the 
Superior Court affirmed the Board by decision dated February 10, 2011.  The 
Biziers timely appeal pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1851, M.R. Civ. P. 80(B)(m), and 
M.R. App. P. 2 (2011).1 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
1  The Biziers filed their appeal from the Planning Board directly with the Superior Court.  Such an 
appeal is only permissible pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(1) if a town’s ordinance so provides.  See 
Hodsdon v. Town of Hermon, 2000 ME 181, ¶ 3, 760 A.2d 221.  The Zoning Ordinance now in effect 
permits a direct appeal.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 7(C)(6)(c) (Apr. 2, 2011).  When the Board 
voted to grant the permit on March 10, 2010, however, the Zoning Ordinance did not permit a direct 
appeal to the Superior Court.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 7(C)(6) (Apr. 4, 2009). 
In April 2010, two days after the Biziers filed their action in the Superior Court, the Turner town 
meeting approved two articles retroactively removing appellate jurisdiction over Planning Board 
decisions from the Zoning Board of Appeals and placing it in the Superior Court.  The articles were 
“applicable to all pending proceedings, applications and petitions commenced on or after February 3, 
2010.”  As amended, the Zoning Ordinance unequivocally permits a direct appeal from the Planning 
Board to Superior Court. 
Towns may alter zoning requirements and retroactively apply the changes to pending permit 
applications when the intent is clear and unequivocal.  See Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC v. Town of 
Kittery, 2004 ME 65, ¶ 20, 856 A.2d 1183 (construing 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989) as a default rule of 
 
4 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶6]  The Biziers raise two issues on appeal.  First, they argue the Planning 
Board erred in concluding that the proposed grocery store and drive-through 
pharmacy would relate harmoniously to the surrounding terrain and structures, as 
the Zoning Ordinance requires.  Second, they contend modifying the dimensions of 
Jordan’s property would create an illegal back lot and, therefore, pursuant to 
section 2(F) of Turner’s Zoning Ordinance,2 Hannaford’s permit may not issue.  
Because we conclude that the Board did not err, we affirm. 
A. 
Proposed Store’s Harmonious Relation to Its Surrounding Environment 
[¶7]  Hannaford’s plan will develop about 5.6 acres of the 7.8-acre proposed 
site, and the resulting building will be 36,000 square feet in a neighborhood where 
nearby residences have an average footprint of about 1000 square feet.  As 
discussed above, the Biziers argue the Board erred in concluding that Hannaford’s 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  
statutory construction).  Although there are grounds to object to the application of a retroactive ordinance 
amendment, none of the parties have done so in this case.  See Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC, 
2004 ME 65, ¶ 24, 856 A.2d 1183 (stating that the applicant “may acquire vested rights as a result of 
equitable considerations”); Thomas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 381 A.2d 643, 647 (Me. 1978) (rejecting a 
permit applicant’s claim of vested rights, but considering whether the municipality showed bad faith in 
amending the ordinance). 
We conclude that the Town of Turner promulgated a valid amendment to its Zoning Ordinance, which 
permitted the direct appeal from the Planning Board to the Superior Court, and that the appeal is properly 
before us.	  
2  For consistency, we cite the 2009 version of the Turner Zoning Ordinance throughout this opinion.  
No differences between the 2009 version and subsequent versions material to the merits of this appeal 
have been brought to our attention. 
 
5 
proposed structure relates harmoniously and in good scale with the natural terrain 
and surrounding development of the area, as the Zoning Ordinance requires. 
[¶8]  We directly review the original Planning Board decision, without 
deference to the Superior Court’s ruling on the intermediate appeal.  See Aydelott 
v. City of Portland, 2010 ME 25, ¶ 9, 990 A.2d 1024; Anderson v. Me. Pub. Emps. 
Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134, ¶ 2, 985 A.2d 501 (appeal pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C).  
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.  See Town of Vassalboro v. Barnett, 
2011 ME 21, ¶ 6, 13 A.3d 784 (quoting Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106, ¶¶ 8-9, 
8 A.3d 684); Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9, 828 A.2d 768.  The 
Biziers bear the burden of persuasion because they seek to vacate the Board’s 
decision.  See Anderson, 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501. 
[¶9]  Section 5(E)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance lists the standards for whether 
a proposed structure relates harmoniously to its surroundings.3  This section begins 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
3  The full text of Zoning Ordinance § 5(E)(2) (Apr. 4, 2009) reads: 
Relation of Proposed Buildings to Environment.  Proposed structures should be related 
harmoniously to the terrain and to existing buildings in the vicinity that have a visual 
relationship to the proposed structures so as to have a minimally adverse [e]ffect on the 
environmental and aesthetic qualities of the developed and neighboring areas.  The 
Planning Board shall consider the following criteria. 
a. Architectural style is not restricted.  Evaluation of the appearance of a project should 
be based on the quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. 
 
6 
with a general mandate that “[p]roposed structures should be related harmoniously 
to the terrain and to existing buildings . . . so as to have a minimally adverse 
[e]ffect on the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the developed and 
neighboring areas.”  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 5(E)(2).  Then, the 
section lists eleven criteria for the Board to consider.  See Turner, Me., Zoning 
Ordinance § 5(E)(2)(a)-(k). 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  
b. Buildings should have good scale and be in harmonious conformance with permanent 
neighboring development. 
c. Materials should have good architectural character and shall be selected for harmony of 
the building with adjoining buildings. 
d. Materials should be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in 
which they are used.  Buildings shall have the same materials, or those that are 
architecturally harmonious, used for all building walls and other exterior building 
components wholly or partly visible from public ways. 
e. Materials should be of durable quality. 
f. Building components, such as windows, doors and eaves, should have good proportions 
and relationships to one another. 
g. Colors should be harmonious and shall use compatible accents. 
h. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be 
screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building, or they shall be 
located so visibility from any public way is minimized. 
i. Exterior lighting shall be part of the architectural concept.  Fixtures, standards and all 
exposed accessories shall be harmonious with building design. 
j. Refuse and waste removal areas, service yards, storage yards, and exterior work areas 
shall be screened from view from public ways, using materials as stated in criteria for 
equipment screening. 
k. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided.  Variation 
of detail, form and siting shall be used to provide visual interest.  In multiple building 
projects, v[ar]iable siting [of] individual buildings may be used to prevent a monotonous 
appearance. 
 
7 
[¶10]  The Biziers focus their argument on whether the proposed structure 
will be “related harmoniously” to the surrounding terrain and existing structures by 
referring almost exclusively to the size of the proposed building.  They argue that a 
store thousands of square feet larger than the average surrounding residence 
cannot, as a matter of law, relate harmoniously to its surroundings.  Contrary to 
their assertion, however, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain a numeric size 
limitation.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 5(E)(2).  Instead, the Zoning 
Ordinance’s eleven criteria require the Board to consider a host of factors unrelated 
to size, such as architectural style, materials, building components, colors, 
visibility of mechanical equipment, lighting, screening of service areas, and 
variation in design to prevent monotony.  See Turner, Me., Zoning 
Ordinance § 5(E)(2).  Moreover, this store will be built in the village district, 
where shopping centers are permitted with Board approval.4  See Turner, Me., 
Zoning Ordinance § 3(H) at 3-16. 
[¶11]  During its consideration of the proposed project, the Board conducted 
a searching, exhaustive review of the Hannaford site plan, which included 
consideration of a variety of comments and additional information submitted by 
the Biziers.  The Board accepted comments during at least two public hearings and 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
4  The Zoning Ordinance defines shopping center as “[a]ny concentration of two or more retail stores 
or service establishments under one ownership or management containing 15,000 square feet or more of 
gross floor space.”  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 8 at 8-23 (Apr. 4, 2009).  The scale of this 
category of contemplated structure supports our holding that the Board did not err in its conclusions. 
 
8 
throughout its evaluation of the project via written submissions from concerned 
citizens.  Its findings of fact and conclusions of law span fifty-eight pages.  The 
administrative record submitted to the Superior Court includes 163 documents, 
which fill seven bound volumes and easily total thousands of pages.5 
[¶12]  We will vacate a Planning Board’s decision if it includes an error of 
law, abuse of discretion, or finding not supported by substantial evidence.  
Rudolph, 2010 ME 106, ¶ 8, 8 A.3d 684.  On the issue of whether this project is 
harmonious and in good scale with the natural terrain and surrounding 
development of the area, the Board completed a careful, accurate review, and the 
record amply supports the Board’s findings, which demonstrate neither error of 
law nor abuse of discretion.  The Biziers have failed to meet their burden of 
persuading us that the Board’s decision should be overturned. 
B. 
Creation of a Back Lot 
[¶13]  The Biziers also argue the Board erred in failing to conclude that the 
Hannaford site plan would create an illegal back lot.  As discussed above, 
Hannaford’s purchase of a portion of the present Jordan lot will leave Jordan in 
possession of a lot with about sixty-five feet of frontage on Snell Hill Road.  
Jordan Lane will continue to run within this remaining strip of land to the balance 
of Jordan’s land. 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
5  Despite the Biziers’ attempts to construe this issue as one of law, the Board’s characterizations and 
fact-findings about whether the site meets Ordinance standards are entitled to “substantial deference.”  
See Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9, 828 A.2d 768. 
 
9 
[¶14]  We review the Planning Board’s interpretation of the Zoning 
Ordinance’s requirements de novo.  Aydelott, 2010 ME 25, ¶ 10, 990 A.2d 1024; 
Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC, 2004 ME 65, ¶ 10, 856 A.2d 1183.  We examine an 
ordinance for its plain meaning and “construe its terms reasonably in light of the 
purposes and objectives of the ordinance and its general structure.”  Stewart v. 
Town of Sedgwick, 2002 ME 81, ¶ 6, 797 A.2d 27.  If an ordinance is clear on its 
face we will look no further than its plain meaning.  Rudolph, 2010 ME 106, ¶ 9, 
8 A.3d 684. 
[¶15]  The Biziers’ argument that the project would transform the Jordan lot 
into an illegal back lot is germane to Hannaford’s site plan review permit because 
of the language in section 2(F) of the Zoning Ordinance: 
F.  Illegal Reduction in Dimensions 
No lot shall be reduced or created in any manner that violates the 
requirements of this Ordinance.  If land is subdivided, conveyed, 
divided or otherwise transferred in violation of this Ordinance, no 
building permit or other municipal permit shall be issued with 
reference to any of the land or lots so reduced or created until all such 
land or lots fulfill the dimensional regulations, except as allowed by 
waiver or density bonus granted by the Planning Board in connection 
with the approval of a subdivision plan, multi-family dwellings, 
elderly and congregate housing complexes, affordable housing 
incentive or open space subdivisions. 
Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 2(F).  Thus, Hannaford may not receive a permit 
for its project if the dimensions of the resulting Jordan lot do not comply with the 
Ordinance.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 2(F). 
 
10 
[¶16]  Jordan’s land sits in the village district where section 3(I) requires one 
hundred feet of frontage.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 3(I) at 3-21.  
Section 3(I) bars creation of new lots “below the minimum standards [including 
frontage] unless allowed by other provisions of this ordinance.”  (emphasis added).  
Section 3(I) specifically notes that, “variations in bulk and space standards may be 
allowed by Section 4 of this ordinance.” 
[¶17]  The resulting Jordan lot would have fewer than one hundred feet of 
frontage along Snell Hill Road,6 and so, it would be a back lot.7  Section 4(A) of 
the Ordinance addresses back lots: 
A.  Back Lots 
Back lots may be developed for uses permitted in the district if they 
are or can be provided with a right-of[-]way that connects with a 
public street or a privately-owned street which privately-owned street 
meets the standards contained in Section VI.H. of the Town of Turner 
Street Construction Ordinance and which complies with the following 
provisions: 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
6  We decline Hannaford’s invitation to measure the required frontage along Jordan Lane.  The 
Ordinance defines road frontage as “[t]he linear distance between the sidelines of a lot measured along the 
lot line that borders upon whatever right-of-way serves as legal access to the lot.”  Turner, Me., Zoning 
Ordinance § 8 at 8-12.  Jordan Lane runs within the Jordan lot.  Accordingly, there is no lot line along 
which to measure the frontage.  See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶ 35, 843 A.2d 8 (noting that 
“[f]rontage cannot be measured along the proposed private road because there is no line separating the lot 
from the road if the road is part of the lot.”). 
7  Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance defines back lot as “[a]ny lot or parcel of land that does not have 
frontage on a public road or privately-owned street meeting the standards contained in Section VI.H. of 
the Town of Turner Street Construction Ordinance or lacks the minimum frontage as required under 
Section 3.I of this Ordinance.”  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 8 at 8-3.  This definition identifies 
two attributes, and the absence of either indicates a back lot.  Jordan’s land possesses the first attribute in 
that it has frontage on a public road because Jordan’s land runs to Snell Hill Road.  Jordan’s reduced lot 
would not possess the second attribute, however, because it “lacks the minimum frontage as required 
under Section 3.I of this Ordinance.”  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 8 at 8-3.  As such, the 
reduction in Jordan’s land would create a back lot. 
 
11 
If a back lot is accessible only by a legally enforceable right-of-way, it 
may be used if [eight] conditions are met. 
Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 4(A) (emphasis added).  This section of the 
Ordinance divides back lots into two varieties.  The Ordinance imposes conditions 
on the use of certain back lots, specifically, those “accessible only by a legally 
enforceable right-of-way.”  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 4(A). 
[¶18]  In this context, “legally enforceable right-of-way” means something 
other than ownership of property in fee simple.  Pursuant to section 8 of the Zoning 
Ordinance, a right-of-way includes “[a]ll public or private roads and streets, state 
and federal highways, private ways (now called public easements), and public land 
reservations for the purpose of public access, including utility rights-of-way.”  See 
Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 8 at 8-21.  Modifying this definition with the 
phrase “legally enforceable” indicates a subcategory of right-of-ways held by 
non-fee owners.  See Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 4(A). 
[¶19]  Jordan owns his property in fee simple.  Thus, the latter portion of 
section 4(A), which imposes conditions, is not applicable to his back lot.  Jordan 
can access Snell Hill Road, a public street, via a right-of-way.  Therefore, his lot 
satisfies all the requirements section 4(A) imposes on his type of back lot. 
[¶20]  We recognize section 4(A) uses the word “developed” and not 
“created” in its first sentence while section 2(F) uses the phrase “reduced or 
created.”  Compare Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 4(A) with Turner, Me., 
 
12 
Zoning Ordinance § 2(F).  The Zoning Ordinance defines “development” as “[a]ny 
manmade changes to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited 
to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, 
excavation, or drilling operations.”  Turner, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 8 at 8-7.  
Section 4(A) could be taken to apply only when manmade changes are made to 
back lots and not to the creation of back lots without manmade changes.  When the 
two sections are read together, however, section 2(F)’s reference to “reduced or 
created” directly implicates Hannaford’s plan here.  Although development may 
not be occurring on the Jordan lot, section 2(F) indicates Hannaford’s development 
requires an examination of any lots it creates. 
[¶21]  The Planning Board did not err in failing to conclude that the resulting 
Jordan lot would be an illegal back lot pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance.  
Although Jordan’s new lot will be a back lot, it satisfies the requirements of section 
4(A), which is an exception to the frontage requirements of section 3(I).  As a 
result, the dimensions of the resulting Jordan lot do not bar the issuance of a site 
plan review permit to Hannaford. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13 
On the briefs: 
 
Jeffrey A. Thaler, Esq., Katherine A. Joyce, Esq., and Andrew 
C. Helman, Esq., Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, 
for appellants Susan Bizier and Philip Bizier 
 
Catherine R. Connors, Esq., and Matthew D. Manahan, Esq., 
Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for appellee Hannaford Bros. 
Co. 
 
The Town of Turner joined in the brief of Hannaford Bros. Co. 
 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Jeffrey A. Thaler, Esq., for appellants Susan Bizier and Philip 
Bizier 
 
Catherine R. Connors, Esq., for appellee Hannaford Bros. Co. 
 
 
 
Androscoggin County Superior Court docket number AP-10-07 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY