Opinion ID: 2189307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Buffers and Preservation of Trees

Text: [¶ 20] The abutters also challenge the Planning Board's failure to require Frustaci to preserve or place vegetative buffers to visually screen the subdivision and to catalog and preserve large trees located on the property, citing section 19-7-2(D)(1)(d) of the open space zoning standards and section 16-3-1(c) of the Town's subdivision regulation.
[¶ 21] Section 19-7-2(D)(1) of the open space zoning standards, entitled Priorities for Location of Lots and Open Space, provides that the Board shall find that individual building lots or building locations are laid out to achieve the following objectives, as applicable. Where the Planning Board finds that objectives conflict, the objectives shall be achieved in the order listed[.] Zoning Ordinance § 19-7-2(D)(1). The fourth of six objectives set forth in section 19-7-2(D)(1) is for lots or building locations to be laid out in a manner that preserves or allows the establishment of a vegetated buffer to serve as an effective visual screen from adjacent properties. Zoning Ordinance § 19-7-2(D)(1)(d). [¶ 22] The Board's decision does not contain the finding required by section 19-7-2-(D)(1) as to whether the layout of the lots and buildings in the Blueberry Ridge Subdivision will achieve the objectives set forth in the section and, in particular, the extent to which the fourth objective will be achieved relative to the three that precede it. Accordingly, on remand, the Board must make the finding required by section 19-7-2(D)(1) of the open space zoning standards. [6]
[¶ 23] Section 16-3-1(c) of the Town's subdivision ordinance provides for vegetative buffers, stating [p]lants or other types of vegetative cover shall be preserved or placed throughout and around the perimeter of any proposed subdivision to provide for an adequate buffer, reduction of noise and lights, separation between the subdivision abutting properties, and enhancement of its appearance. Subdivision Ordinance § 16-3-1(c). It also provides that when practical, an applicant shall be required to preserve natural features such as water courses or bodies, existing trees of 10 inches or more in diameter ... [and such other features] which, if preserved, would add to the attractiveness of the subdivision. Id. § 16-3-1( o ). The Planning Board may grant waivers of subdivision standards if it finds that undue hardship, practical difficulties or restriction upon imaginative and otherwise desirable design may result from strict compliance with this Ordinance and if it finds that a proposed alternative meets four additional requirements. Id. § 16-3-5. [7] [¶ 24] The Board found that the combination of vegetative plantings and wooden stockade fencing would provide an adequate buffer that reduces noise and lighting, separates the subdivision from abutting properties and enhances the subdivision. It also found that the combination of a berm and fencing along the perimeter of the subdivision abutting the Charlotte Rd. properties is appropriate to protect the subdivision lots from headlight wash and delineate [ sic ] the separation between the subdivision and the abutting properties and former road right-of-way of Charlotte Rd. [¶ 25] Although the Board found that the use of fencing as part of the buffer was both adequate and appropriate, it did not make the findings required by section 16-3-5 to support a waiver of the purely vegetative buffering contemplated by section 16-3-1(c). Subdivision Ordinance § 16-3-1(c) (stating that [p]lants or other types of vegetative cover shall be preserved or placed throughout and around the perimeter of any proposed subdivision) (emphasis added). On remand, the Board must make findings pursuant to section 16-3-5 if it is to approve Frustaci's proposal to use wooden fencing as part of the subdivision's buffer. See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶¶ 25-26, 843 A.2d 8, 17-18 (vacating a Planning Board's waiver of a subdivision regulation because the Board failed to make specific findings of fact as required to support a waiver). [¶ 26] The Board also expressly found that the applicant has, when practical, preserved natural features and trees and that the Subdivision Ordinance does not preclude the removal of trees for development. Frustaci submitted, and the Board considered, detailed plans and information concerning the design of the buffer for the subdivision. Contrary to the abutters' claim, the Board made the findings required by section 16-3-1( o ) on this point and the findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Thacker v. Konover Dev. Corp., 2003 ME 30, ¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 818 A.2d 1013, 1017-19. The entry is: Judgment vacated and remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the Cape Elizabeth Planning Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.