Title: Murray v. City of Portland

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
 2023 ME 57 
Docket: 
Cum-22-271 
Argued: 
 May 9, 2023  
Decided: 
 August 22, 2023 
 
Panel: 
 STANFILL, C.J., and JABAR, HORTON, and LAWRENCE, JJ., and HJELM, A.R.J. 
 
 
PETER L. MURRAY et al. 
 
v. 
 
CITY OF PORTLAND et al. 
 
 
STANFILL, C.J. 
[¶1]  Peter L. Murray, Deborah D. Murray, Carol Connor, Michael Hoover, 
and Jean McManamy (collectively, the neighbors) appeal from a judgment of the 
Superior Court (Cumberland County, O’Neil, J.) denying their Rule 80B petition 
for review of government action, see M.R. Civ. P. 80B, and thus affirming the 
Portland Planning Board’s decision that approved 37 Montreal LLC’s 
application to construct a multi-unit residential building.  The neighbors 
contend the Planning Board erred in approving the application because the 
proposed development fails to meet the height, setback, and design-review 
requirements of the City’s Code of Ordinances (Code).  Because we conclude 
that the Planning Board’s findings are insufficient to enable meaningful 
 
2 
appellate review, we vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and remand with 
instructions to remand the matter to the Planning Board for findings of fact. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  “We draw the following facts from the administrative record before 
the Planning Board, the municipal body that issued the operative decision.”  
Friends of Lamoine v. Town of Lamoine, 2020 ME 70, ¶ 2, 234 A.3d 214; see M.R. 
Civ. P. 80B(f). 
[¶3]  In August 2019, 37 Montreal LLC filed an initial site plan, 
subdivision, and inclusionary-zoning application with the Planning Board.  In 
its application, 37 Montreal LLC proposed to replace what had been three 
single-family houses with a four-story, multi-unit residential building at 
19 Willis Street.1  The property is located in the R-6 residential zone and the 
Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as established in the 
Code.  See Portland, Me., Code § 14-140.5(a) (May 4, 2015).  The Planning Board 
accepted comments and provided its feedback on the proposal a month later, 
during a workshop.2   
 
1  37 Montreal LLC combined two pre-existing lots into a single parcel.   
2  Although the Planning Board indicated that the City had adopted a new version of the Code on 
December 1, 2020, the Planning Board applied the prior version to 37 Montreal LLC’s application 
because that was what was in effect at the time of the workshop.   
 
3 
[¶4]  After a pause in activity, 37 Montreal LLC filed a new set of plans 
with the Planning Board in April 2021.  The City’s urban designer, lead planner, 
and historic preservation program manager conducted a design review of the 
proposed development, issuing a memorandum authored by the urban 
designer on May 18, 2021.  Soon after 37 Montreal LLC responded to the 
memorandum, the Planning Board held a public hearing on July 13, 2021.  
Before the hearing, residents from the area submitted comments that focused 
primarily on the proposed development’s height, character, and setbacks.   
[¶5]  By early December 2021, 37 Montreal LLC submitted its final 
application and plans to construct a four-story, twelve-unit residential 
building.3  The proposed building would be forty-five feet in height as measured 
from a finished grade created by adding fill to the sloping lot.4  The building 
itself would meet the Code’s setback requirements.  See Portland, Me., Code 
§ 14-140.5(c) (June 5, 2018) (requiring a five-foot side-street setback and a 
 
3  There is a discrepancy in the record about the building’s size.  37 Montreal LLC’s first application 
indicated the building would be 23,400 square feet, but its final application stated it would be 22,900 
square feet.  The Planning Board concluded that the building would be 23,400 square feet.   
4  The maximum allowable height is forty-five feet because the proposed development has “3 units 
or more . . .  that include at least one workforce housing unit.”  Portland, Me., Code § 14-140.5(c) (June 
5, 2018) (quotation marks omitted).   
 
4 
ten-foot side-yard setback).  Walls, however, would be constructed within the 
setbacks to contain the fill upon which the building would sit.   
[¶6]  Planning and urban development staff issued a report to the 
Planning Board on December 10, 2021, concluding that the development 
satisfied all zoning requirements and recommending that the Planning Board 
approve the application subject to certain conditions.   
[¶7]  The Planning Board held its final hearing on December 14, 2021.  
Comments submitted before and during the hearing focused on three primary 
concerns: the development’s compliance with the Code’s height requirement, 
the development’s compliance with the setback requirements, and the 
Planning Board’s 
compliance 
with 
the 
Code’s 
historic-preservation 
design-review requirement.   
[¶8]  Specifically, the neighbors argued that the building would exceed 
the maximum height allowed by the Code of forty-five feet above grade.  See 
Portland, Me., Code § 14-140.5(c).  The Code defines the height of a building as 
“[t]he vertical measurement from grade, or the predevelopment grade on the 
islands, to the highest point” of the building.  Portland, Me., Code § 14-47 
(Feb. 20, 2019).  The neighbors asserted that this provision requires a 
building’s height to be measured from the natural, unfinished grade, which 
 
5 
means that the proposed building’s height would exceed forty-five feet from 
grade.  In contrast, as noted above, 37 Montreal LLC’s final plan measured the 
building’s height from the finished grade created by the imported fill.   
[¶9]  The neighbors also maintained that the proposed development 
would violate the Code’s setback requirements.  The Code defines “setback” as 
“[t]he required distance and the land resulting therefrom between a street line 
and the closest possible line of conforming structure.”  Portland, Me., Code 
§ 14-47 (emphasis added).  The Code defines “structure” as “[a]nything 
constructed or erected of more than one (1) member which requires a fixed 
location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the 
ground.”  Portland, Me., Code § 14-47.  The Code does not define “member.”  The 
neighbors argued that the setbacks should be measured from the proposed 
“retaining walls,”5 and not from the building, because the walls are “structures” 
as that term is defined by the Code.  The neighbors contended that although the 
building itself would meet all setback requirements, the retaining walls would 
not, and the development therefore would not comply with the Code.   
 
5  37 Montreal LLC characterized the walls as “retaining walls,” a characterization with which the 
neighbors disagree.  We use the phrase for ease of reference without suggesting whether the walls 
are structures under the Code. 
 
6 
[¶10]  Finally, the neighbors argued that the Planning Board could not 
approve the application because it had not received a written analysis from 
historic preservation staff as required by the Code’s design-review standards.  
See Portland, Me., Code § 14-526(c)(5)(b) (Nov. 7, 2016) (requiring an 
advisory, historic-preservation design review when a property falls within 
100 feet of the Munjoy Hill Historic District.)   
[¶11]  At the close of the hearing, the Planning Board unanimously voted 
to approve 37 Montreal LLC’s application.  The Planning Board issued a written 
decision on December 17, 2021.6  The Planning Board stated that its decision 
was “based upon the application, documents and plans as submitted” as well as 
the findings in the December 10 report that planning and urban development 
staff prepared.  Although the Planning Board concluded generally that the 
proposed development met the Code’s site plan, subdivision, and 
inclusionary-zoning standards, the Planning Board did not include any specific 
findings related to the challenges that the neighbors raised.   
[¶12]  On January 14, 2022, the neighbors filed a Rule 80B petition for 
review of the Planning Board’s decision, naming 37 Montreal LLC as a party in 
 
6  The Planning Board cited section 14-527 for the site plan standards, but section 14-526 appears 
to be the applicable section.  See Portland, Me., Code § 14-526 (Nov. 7, 2016).   
 
7 
interest.7  See M.R. Civ. P. 80B.  The neighbors asserted that the Planning Board 
erred because 37 Montreal LLC’s proposed development failed to meet the 
height, setback, and historic-preservation design-review requirements under 
the Code.  In a judgment issued on August 5, 2022, the Superior Court concluded 
that the Planning Board did not err and affirmed the Planning Board’s decision.  
The neighbors timely appealed to us.  See M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1); M.R. Civ. P. 
80B(n); 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2023).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶13]  We review the Planning Board’s decision directly because the 
Superior Court acted in an intermediate appellate capacity.  See Fitanides v. 
City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088; Friends of Cong. Square Park v. 
City of Portland, 2014 ME 63, ¶ 7, 91 A.3d 601.  “We review the Planning Board’s 
decision for error of law, abuse of discretion or findings not supported by 
substantial evidence in the record.”  Fitanides, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088 
(quotation marks omitted).  Because the Planning Board did not make findings 
 
7  All the neighbors live near the development’s location and participated in the administrative 
process.  The neighbors’ standing has not been challenged in this appeal.  See generally Sahl v. Town of 
York, 2000 ME 180, ¶¶ 8-9, 760 A.2d 266. 
 
8 
of fact sufficient for us to determine the basis for its approval, however, we 
cannot meaningfully review its decision.   
[¶14]  The Planning Board was required to make findings of fact adequate 
for judicial review.  See Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 
2001 ME 16, ¶¶ 15-16, 769 A.2d 834.  The Code itself directs that “[e]very final 
decision of the planning board . . . shall include written findings of fact, and shall 
specify the reason or reasons for such decision.”  Portland, Me., Code § 14-27(b) 
(Aug. 7, 1989).  We have also explained that 
[m]eaningful judicial review of an agency decision is not possible 
without findings of fact sufficient to apprise the court of the 
decision’s basis.  In the absence of such findings, a reviewing court 
cannot effectively determine if an agency’s decision is supported by 
the evidence, and there is a danger of judicial usurpation of 
administrative functions.  Adequate findings also assure more 
careful administrative considerations, help parties plan cases for 
rehearing or judicial review and keep agencies within their 
jurisdiction. 
 
Chapel Rd. Assocs. v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178, ¶ 10, 787 A.2d 137 (alteration, 
citations, and quotation marks omitted); see also Mills v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 
134, ¶¶ 18-20, 955 A.2d 258. 
[¶15]  Here, because the Planning Board’s decision does not contain any 
of the required findings, meaningful judicial review is impossible.  The 
Planning Board did not explain its conclusions or reasoning related to the 
 
9 
proposed development’s height or setbacks.  Further, its decision does not 
mention or discuss the historic-preservation design-review requirement.  
[¶16]  Although the parties argue the facts to us as though the 
Planning Board made certain findings, “this is not a case in which the facts are 
obvious from the record.”  Widewaters Stillwater Co. v. Bangor Area Citizens 
Organized for Responsible Dev., 2002 ME 27, ¶ 12, 790 A.2d 597; see Chapel Rd. 
Assocs., 2001 ME 178, ¶ 12, 787 A.2d 137.  For example, it is not obvious 
whether the Planning Board found that the retaining walls are not “structures” 
within the meaning of the Code.  Absent some illumination of the Planning 
Board’s reasoning, we cannot determine in this appeal whether its ultimate 
conclusion was supported by both the record evidence and a correct 
construction of the applicable provisions of the Code. 
[¶17]  We also cannot treat the comments that individual Planning Board 
members made during the hearing as factual findings of the whole 
Planning Board.  See Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶ 28, 837 A.2d 
148 (“[F]indings, whether in writing or stated orally, must be a statement of the 
decision-maker’s findings, not the views of individual members of the 
decision-making agency.”); Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of Portland, 2021 
ME 32, ¶ 37, 252 A.3d 504 (“[W]e can neither infer that any particular comment 
 
10 
represents the decision of the City Council nor deduce the City Council’s 
reasoning based on the comments as a whole.”). 
[¶18]  In short, we cannot “review the matter by implying the findings 
and grounds for the decision from the available record.”  Chapel Rd. Assocs., 
2001 ME 178, ¶ 13, 787 A.2d 137. 
[¶19]  “The remedy for an agency’s failure to make sufficient and clear 
findings of fact is a remand to the agency for findings that permit meaningful 
judicial review.”  Id.  (alterations and quotation marks omitted); see 
Fair Elections Portland, Inc., 2021 ME 32, ¶ 38, 252 A.3d 504.  Accordingly, we 
must remand this case to the Superior Court with instructions to further  
remand to the Planning Board for findings of fact. 
The entry is: 
 
Judgment vacated.  Remanded to the Superior 
Court with instructions to remand to the City of 
Portland Planning Board for findings of fact.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
Elizabeth A. Boepple, Esq., and Michael D. Traister, Esq. (orally), Murray, Plumb 
& Murray, Portland, for appellants Peter L. Murray, Deborah D. Murray, Carol 
Connor, Michael Hoover, and Jean McManamy 
 
Natalie L. Burns, Esq. (orally), and Mark A. Bower, Esq., Jensen Baird, Portland, 
for appellee 37 Montreal LLC 
 
Amy R. McNally, Esq. (orally), City of Portland, Portland, for appellee City of 
Portland 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number AP-2022-03 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY