Title: Cape Shore House Owners Ass'n v. Town of Cape Elizabeth

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2019 ME 86 
Docket: 
Cum-18-365 
Argued: 
April 9, 2019 
Decided: 
June 4, 2019 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
CAPE SHORE HOUSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION et al. 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF CAPE ELIZABETH et al. 
 
 
HJELM, J. 
[¶1]  In this zoning dispute between owners of abutting parcels of 
property located in Cape Elizabeth, Cape Shore House Owners Association and 
Constance Jordan (collectively, Cape Shore) appeal from a judgment of the 
Superior Court (Cumberland County, L. Walker, J.) dismissing their claim for a 
declaratory judgment.  Because the court did not err by dismissing that claim 
as duplicative of Cape Shore’s appeal from municipal action filed pursuant to 
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B, which was included in the same complaint, 
we affirm the judgment.   
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The following facts are drawn from the administrative and 
procedural records.  See Appletree Cottage, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2017 
ME 177, ¶ 2, 169 A.3d 396.   
[¶3]  Cape Shore owns a parcel of land that abuts a parcel owned by Alan 
and Mara DeGeorge.  In May of 2017, the DeGeorges applied to the Cape 
Elizabeth Zoning Board of Appeals for permission to raze an existing house 
located on their property and to build a new one.  The house they wanted to 
remove was a nonconforming structure, see Cape Elizabeth, Me., Zoning 
Ordinance § 19-1-3 (Nov. 5, 2016) (defining nonconforming building), and was 
located within Cape Elizabeth’s Shoreland Performance Overlay District 
(SPOD), see id. § 19-6-11(A).   
[¶4]  Later that month, the ZBA conducted a hearing on the DeGeorges’ 
application.  At the hearing, the DeGeorges presented evidence that the 
replacement house would be within the footprint of the existing building but 
would include a new, partial third story that would increase the existing 
building’s elevation by seven feet, to approximately thirty feet.1  Testifying at 
                                         
1  The minutes of the hearing on the DeGeorges’ application show that a representative of the 
DeGeorges told the ZBA that “the height . . . increases seven feet for the middle third” of the proposed 
structure and that he “believed the elevation [of the proposed structure] to be 30 feet.”  The ZBA 
found that the height of the new house would be more than thirty feet but less than the thirty-five-foot 
 
3 
the hearing as an abutting property owner, Cape Shore asserted that because 
the DeGeorges sought to replace a nonconforming building located within the 
SPOD with a new structure that was larger in some respects, the ZBA was 
required to consider the effect that the proposed construction would have on 
views, see id. § 19-4-4(B)(1) to (3).  On that basis, Cape Shore opposed the 
DeGeorges’ application because, it contended, the increased height of the 
proposed structure would “greatly affect” its views, including its view of the 
water.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the ZBA unanimously approved the 
DeGeorges’ application.   
[¶5]  Following the issuance of the ZBA’s decision, Cape Shore filed what 
became a three-count complaint against the Town of Cape Elizabeth and the 
DeGeorges.2  Count 1 was a request for judicial review of the ZBA’s approval of 
the DeGeorges’ application.  See M.R Civ. P. 80B.  In Count 2, Cape Shore 
                                         
maximum height allowed by the ordinance.  See Cape Elizabeth, Me., Zoning Ordinance 
§ 19-6-11(E)(2) (Nov. 5, 2016).   
2  Cape Shore’s original complaint contained a single count, which alleged that the decision of the 
ZBA to approve the DeGeorges’ application was “arbitrary and capricious, was erroneous as a matter 
of law, was not based on substantial evidence in the record, [and] constitutes an abuse of 
discretion”—in other words, grounds typically associated with a Rule 80B appeal.  See, e.g., Wolfram 
v. Town of N. Haven, 2017 ME 114, ¶ 7, 163 A.3d 835.  Cape Shore subsequently filed a brief pursuant 
to Rule 80B(g) in which it contended that the ZBA’s factual findings were inadequate for judicial 
review and that the ZBA abused its discretion by approving the DeGeorges’ proposal “despite the 
significant impact on views.”  On the Town’s unopposed motion, the court remanded the case to the 
ZBA for more explicit findings of fact.  After the ZBA issued additional factual findings, Cape Shore 
filed an amended complaint containing the three separate counts described in the text.   
 
4 
asserted an independent claim for a declaratory judgment that section 
19-6-11(E)(2) of the Cape Elizabeth Zoning Ordinance, which provides a 
thirty-five-foot height restriction for expansions of nonconforming buildings 
within the SPOD, is preempted by a provision of the state’s Mandatory 
Shoreland Zoning Act (MSZA), 38 M.R.S. § 439-A(4)(C)(1) (2018), which, Cape 
Shore contends, restricts the expansion of nonconforming structures within 
seventy-five feet of the shore to twenty-feet high or the height of the existing 
building.  Count 3 of Cape Shore’s complaint asserted a tort claim against the 
DeGeorges for trespass.   
[¶6]  The DeGeorges filed a motion to dismiss the claim for a declaratory 
judgment in Count 2 as duplicative of the Rule 80B appeal in Count 1 because 
the relief sought in Count 2 “would be available as part of the direct review 
under 80B, . . . [and therefore] 80B provides the exclusive method of review.”  
The DeGeorges also moved for the court to dismiss Count 3, arguing that a claim 
for trespass is not an independent claim that may be joined with a Rule 80B 
appeal, see M.R. Civ. P. 80B(i).  Over Cape Shore’s objection, the court granted 
the DeGeorges’ motion and dismissed Count 2 as duplicative of Count 1.  The 
court also granted the DeGeorges’ motion to dismiss Count 3, leaving only Cape 
Shore’s Rule 80B appeal of the ZBA’s decision to be adjudicated.  In a separate 
 
5 
order issued later, the court affirmed the ZBA’s decision to approve the 
DeGeorges’ application and entered judgment against Cape Shore on Count 1.  
Cape Shore filed a timely notice of appeal.  See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2018); M.R. 
Civ. P. 80B(n); M.R. App. P. 2B(c).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶7]  Cape Shore appeals only the court’s dismissal of its independent 
claim for declaratory judgment in Count 2, where the court acted in its capacity 
as a trial court and not in an intermediate appellate capacity.3  See Baker’s Table, 
Inc. v. City of Portland, 2000 ME 7, ¶ 14, 743 A.2d 237 (“When a complaint 
seeking review of governmental action is combined with one or more counts 
alleging causes of action that are independent of the court’s review of the 
governmental action, the court will be called upon to act in two distinct 
capacities—as an appellate court and as a trial court.”); see also M.R. 
Civ. P. 80B(i).  When a claim for purportedly independent relief is joined with 
an administrative appeal and the court strikes the former as duplicative—as 
                                         
3  Cape Shore has waived any claim of error as to the judgment on its Rule 80B appeal in Count 1 
of the amended complaint.  See Dragomir v. Spring Harbor Hosp., 2009 ME 51, ¶ 1 n.1, 970 A.2d 310 
(stating that an issue raised in a notice of appeal, but for which no argument is developed in the brief, 
is “effectively withdrawn . . . , [and] we do not consider the issue on appeal”); see also Laqualia v. 
Laqualia, 2011 ME 114, ¶ 16 n.6, 30 A.3d 838 (declining to consider an argument raised for the first 
time at oral argument).  Further, Cape Shore does not challenge the court’s dismissal of the trespass 
claim in Count 3 of the amended complaint.   
 
6 
the court did here—we review the judgment for an abuse of discretion.  See 
Kane v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 2008 ME 185, ¶¶ 31-32, 
960 A.2d 1196; Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91, ¶¶ 6-7, 750 A.2d 577.   
 
[¶8]  A claim for a declaratory judgment is proper in circumstances where 
a challenge to a regulation or ordinance is necessary “to resolve a dispute 
regarding a planned action, before the matter actually proceeds and the 
challenged ordinance is applied to the detriment of the plaintiffs”—in other 
words, as an “anticipatory challenge.”  Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 2005 ME 24, 
¶ 14, 868 A.2d 172.  After a municipal agency has adjudicated a matter, 
however, a contention that the decision was erroneous because it infringes 
upon some superior legal authority becomes subsumed within “the essence of 
matters that must be brought pursuant to Rule 80B to question whether the 
particular action of a municipal administrative agency is consistent with the 
requirements of law.”  Id. ¶ 13.  This is true even when a party asserts that the 
challenged ordinance is inconsistent with statutory or constitutional 
provisions.4  Id.  Therefore, if, pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B(i), 
                                         
4  As the Superior Court correctly pointed out in its order dismissing Count 2, the record from the 
municipal proceeding does not show that Cape Shore challenged the DeGeorges’ application on the 
ground that state law prohibited the height increase proposed for the new construction.  Any such 
failure to raise that issue, however, was not the reason why the court dismissed Count 2; the court 
made clear that the basis for its order was the duplicative nature of Count 2.  The failure to preserve 
that statutory challenge during the municipal proceeding would bear only on whether, based on the 
record and arguments presented to the ZBA, the ZBA’s decision to grant the DeGeorges’ application 
 
7 
a complaint contains both a Rule 80B appeal and an ostensibly independent 
challenge to the law applied by the municipal body, the latter may properly be 
dismissed as duplicative if it “relies on the same factual allegations, and seeks 
the same relief” as the Rule 80B appeal, Kane, 2008 ME 185, ¶ 32, 960 A.2d 
1196; see also Adelman, 2000 ME 91, ¶ 7, 750 A.2d 577.   
 
[¶9]  Here, in Count 2 of its complaint, Cape Shore sought a declaratory 
judgment that the thirty-five-foot height restriction provided in the Cape 
Elizabeth Ordinance, which the ZBA applied during its adjudication of the 
DeGeorges’ application, is preempted by the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act, 
38 M.R.S. § 439-A(4)(C)(1).  That claim, however, was not anticipatory.  Rather, 
it was presented in the same factual context as the Rule 80B aspect of the 
complaint, namely, the DeGeorges’ application with supporting documents and 
the record already created at the ZBA hearing.  Further, in the claim for a 
declaratory judgment, Cape Shore sought action by the court to “invalidate[] 
the DeGeorges’ ZBA approval” on the basis of state law, which in effect was the 
same relief that Cape Shore requested in its Rule 80B appeal.  Consequently, 
                                         
was erroneous.  As we note in the text, see supra ¶ 7, Cape Shore has not argued here that the court 
erred by affirming the ZBA’s decision to grant the application, and, in any event, based on the record 
before us, any such challenge would be unavailing.  See Wolfram, 2017 ME 114, ¶ 7, 163 A.3d 835 
(stating the standard of review for an appeal brought pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B(n)).   
 
8 
because Cape Shore’s claim for declaratory relief was not independent from its 
Rule 80B appeal, the court’s dismissal of Cape Shore’s claim for declaratory 
judgment as duplicative was not an abuse of its discretion.  See Kane, 2008 ME 
185, ¶ 32, 960 A.2d 1196. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
William H. Dale, Esq. (orally), and Mark A. Bower, Esq., Jensen Baird Gardner & 
Henry, Portland, for appellants Cape Shore House Owners Association and 
Constance Jordan 
 
John J. Wall, III, Esq. (orally), Monaghan Leahy, LLP, Portland, for appellee Town 
of Cape Elizabeth 
 
David M. Kallin, Esq. (orally), Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for appellees 
Alan DeGeorge and Mara DeGeorge 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number AP-2017-26 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY