Title: Juliano v. Town of Poland

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

Decided March 2, 1999. *546 Bryan M. Dench (orally), Harold N. Skelton, Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, P.A., Auburn, for plaintiff. Curtis Webber (orally), Linnell, Choate & Webber, Auburn, for defendant. Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, and CALKINS, JJ. WATHEN, C.J. [¶ 1] Plaintiff Frank A. Juliano appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Alexander, J.) affirming a decision of the Town of Poland Board of Appeals. The Board upheld a stop work order issued by the Poland Code Enforcement Officer directing Juliano to cease construction at his Poland bottling plant. Finding that the Board exceeded its authority, we vacate the judgment. [¶ 2] The facts presented to the Board can be summarized as follows: Frank Juliano owns a small commercial bottling plant in an area of Poland zoned as Rural Residential. In July 1995, during his final weeks as Poland's Code Enforcement Officer, Ralph Stanley issued a building permit to Juliano for the construction of two forty by sixty foot additions to his existing building. In September 1997, Edward Blow, the new Code Enforcement Officer, ordered Juliano to cease construction at his bottling plant because he "did not have a Building Permit for the activity" he was conducting.[1] Juliano responded by calling attention to his 1995 permit. [¶ 3] The parties pursued informal negotiations without success and Juliano's attempts to clarify the basis of the stop work order were ineffective. On November 4, Juliano appealed Blow's stop work order to the Board.[2] At the hearing, the Board discussed *547 both the possibility that Juliano's 1995 permit had been issued in error (because Juliano's facility did not qualify as "small commerce" and thus required a conditional use permit rather than a building permit) and that Juliano had exceeded the limits of the permit.[3] The Board did not definitively determine which issue was before it. After discussing the matter at length on the record, the Board denied Juliano's appeal in a written decision. [¶ 4] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B, Juliano appealed the decision of the Board to the Superior Court, which upheld the Board's decision. This appeal followed. Juliano contends that the Board's decision was improperly based upon a finding that the 1995 permit was issued in error. [¶ 5] We review directly the decision of the administrative board, examining the record developed before the board. See Cobbossee Dev. Group v. Town of Winthrop, 585 A.2d 190 , 192 (Me.1991). We review the decision of a board of appeals for "abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." Lewis v. Town of Rockport, 1998 ME 144, ¶ 9, 712 A.2d 1047 , 1049. We are bound to affirm the decision of a board of appeals unless it was "unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023 , 1029 (Me.1982). [¶ 6] The Board received evidence and argument to the effect that the construction activity exceeded the terms of the 1995 permit. At least three members of the Board voted to deny Juliano's appeal on that basis.[4] The Board's written opinion, however, upholds the stop work order solely on the basis that the 1995 permit was invalidly issued *548 because Juliano's facility did not fall within the permitted use category of "small commerce" and therefore requires a conditional use permit for any construction. The written opinion states: Finding of Fact . . . . 4. The applicant proposes to construct additional buildings of which he already has permits for on such property. . . . . Other relevant facts are: . . . . 2) The second permit was granted by the Town in 1995 for two 40x60 sq. ft. additions. Those additions were under construction prior to the stop work order.... Conclusions Based upon the above stated facts and the provisions of the ordinance cited the Board concludes that 1) Mr. Juliano's facility is not a small commerce, commercial and service facility less than 2500 sq. ft. of gross floor space and therefore requires a Conditional Use permit under the Town's zoning ordinance 4.2.4. [¶ 7] Section 6.8.2(4) of the Poland Land Zoning Ordinance requires that an appeal from a decision of a Code Enforcement Officer be commenced within thirty days of the decision. In this case, the stop work order, if issued because the work permit obtained by Juliano in 1995 was invalidly issued, is in essence a challenge to the former Code Enforcement Officer's decision to issue the building permit. Considered as an appeal from a prior decision of a Code Enforcement Officer, the stop work order was issued nearly two years after the permit was granted and was not timely due to the thirty day appeal period specified in the ordinance. We have noted that "[s]trict compliance with the appeal procedure of an ordinance is necessary to ensure that once an individual obtains a building permit, he can rely on that permit with confidence that it will not be revoked after he has commenced construction." Wright v. Town of Kennebunkport, 1998 ME 184, ¶ 8, 715 A.2d 162 , 165 . [¶ 8] The Board was authorized to consider and appears to have considered whether Juliano exceeded the bounds of an otherwise valid permit. Nevertheless, because the Board's written decision upholds the stop work order expressly on the basis that Juliano's permit was invalid, the Board exceeded its lawful authority. The entry is: Judgment of the Superior Court vacated. Remanded with instructions to vacate the decision of the Poland Board of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.