Opinion ID: 3157467
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Site Plan Appeals

Text: [¶12] Unfortunately, the provisions of the Ordinance that purport to explain the appellate jurisdiction of the City’s Planning Board present an imbroglio of confusion and contradiction.7 [¶13] The Ordinance does not set out the jurisdiction and authority of the Planning Board in any one provision or set of provisions. Neither do any of the Ordinance sections regarding site plans provide a picture of clarity on the question of appeals. Of the two provisions that discuss site plan amendments in particular, section 1109 contains no mention of any right of appeal and section 1103 presents, at best, a procedure rife with glaring holes. [¶14] Specifically, section 1103(7) discusses the City Planner’s authority to approve minor site plans, and allows appeals of City Planner decisions on minor 6 In approving WWS’s initial site plan, the Planning Board also required that it approve major amendments to the site plan, and that the City Planner approve minor amendments to the site plan, and vested with the City Planner the determination of whether a change was major or minor. See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶¶ 14-15, 113 A.3d 1088 (holding that the City may delegate decision-making authority to the City Planner with regard to minor amendments to conditional use plans). 7 The Ordinance provisions regarding the nature and scope of the ZBA’s appellate jurisdiction are similarly obscured by their inconsistent terminology, puzzling section headings, unnecessary duplication of procedural requirements, and various organizational deficiencies. We could locate no provision that suggests that the ZBA has jurisdiction over site plan decisions or City Planner decisions of any type. See Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance §§ 1003-1 to 1003-6, 1004-1 to 1004-8 (Feb. 17, 2004). 9 site plans made by the applicants for those site plans to go to the Planning Board,8 but it makes no mention of site plan amendments or appeals of site plan amendments. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1103(7) (Feb. 17, 2004) (“If the applicant is not satisfied with the determination of the City Planner, the applicant shall be permitted to have the entire application reviewed by the Planning Board.” (emphases added)). In another provision, the Ordinance reiterates that all “[a]ppeals of decisions on minor site plans shall be made to the Planning Board.” Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1114 (Feb. 17, 2004). To the extent either section 1103(7) or section 1114 is read to apply to appeals of site plan amendments, however, both mention only minor site plans, and neither addresses decisions on minor amendments to major site plans, as is at issue here. Furthermore, section 1103(7) mentions only those appeals brought by the applicant, and does not discuss appeals brought by any party other than the applicant. [¶15] Section 1103(8) does specifically refer to minor amendments granted by the City Planner, and does provide an avenue for review by the Planning Board of the City Planner’s decision on a minor amendment—“If the applicant is not satisfied with the determination of the City Planner, the applicant shall be permitted to have the entire application reviewed by the Planning Board, if such a 8 The Ordinance appears to place no time limitation on appeals by applicants who are “not satisfied with the determination of the City Planner” concerning minor site plans. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1103(7). 10 request is made within thirty (30) days of the City Planner’s determination.” Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1103(8) (emphases added). As is the case with section 1103(7), section 1103(8) of the Ordinance expressly provides an opportunity for appeal or review only by request of the applicant, and not by request of an abutter like Desfosses. [¶16] Notwithstanding these problematic aspects of the Ordinance, we must interpret it to avoid “absurd, illogical, unreasonable, inconsistent, or anomalous results if an alternative interpretation avoids such results.” Dickau, 2014 ME 158, ¶ 21, 107 A.3d 621. To interpret section 1103(8) to provide the applicant a right of appeal of a City Planner’s determination on a site plan amendment to the Planning Board, but to provide no such appeal to a nonapplicant challenging the same decision would be to condone precisely the type of absurd result we are charged with avoiding. Similarly, to interpret sections 1103(7) and 1114 to allow appeals of all City Planner decisions on minor site plans to the Planning Board, but not allow appeals of City Planner decisions on minor amendments to major site plans would create an additional absurd result. [¶17] To avoid these absurdities, we therefore interpret “applicant” in sections 1103(7) and 1103(8) to include nonapplicants alike, and we interpret “minor site plan[s]” in sections 1103(7) and 1114 to include minor amendments to 11 major site plans. In this way, all appeals of the City Planner’s decisions on site plans and site plan amendments may be taken to the Planning Board.9 [¶18] Other aspects of the City’s Ordinance support this conclusion. See Dickau, 2014 ME 158, ¶ 22, 107 A.3d 621 (evaluating the entire statutory scheme—including its “design, structure, and purpose as well as [its] aggregate language”—as a component of a plain language interpretation (quotation marks omitted)). The fact that it is the Planning Board that decides site plan approvals and amendments for major site plans indicates that the Planning Board was meant to take the primary role in considering site plan issues. See Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1103(1) (“No building permit, plumbing permit, or certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer . . . for any use or development within the scope of this Article until a site plan of development has been approved and signed by the Planning Board . . . .”); Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1103(8) (“Once approved and signed by the Planning Board, no 9 WWS encourages us to interpret the absence of any Ordinance provision expressly permitting an appeal of a City Planner decision on a minor amendment to a major site plan by a nonapplicant to mean that no such appeal is allowed. Even if we were to conclude that the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction over such appeals, we would nevertheless reject WWS’s argument based on our extensive body of law interpreting 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(1) (2014) to provide for the ZBA’s appellate jurisdiction over such municipal enforcement decisions by default. See Wister v. Town of Mt. Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶¶ 15-26, 974 A.2d 903; Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, ¶¶ 7-11, 924 A.2d 1061; Hodsdon v. Town of Hermon, 2000 ME 181, ¶¶ 3-6, 760 A.2d 221; Freeman v. Town of Southport, 568 A.2d 826, 827-29 (Me. 1990); Cushing v. Smith, 457 A.2d 816, 819-21 (Me. 1983); see also Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 15 n.4, 113 A.3d 1088 (suggesting that an appeal of a City Planner’s decision on a conditional use permit would have to go to the ZBA in the absence of an express Ordinance provision requiring it to go elsewhere). 12 changes may be made to approved plans, without an amended approval from the Planning Board in the case of a major amendment . . . .”); see also Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1109 (“Any changes in the [site] plan after approval must be approved by the Planning Board . . . .”). [¶19] Moreover, the fact that sections 1103(7), 1103(8), and 1114 already expressly require that certain appeals of City Planner site plan decisions go to the Planning Board can only be interpreted to reflect a municipal determination that it is the Planning Board that has the expertise to evaluate City Planner decisions as to site plans and site plan amendments. See Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance §§ 1103(7), (8), 1114. Finally, the Ordinance’s provision that all Planning Board decisions may be appealed directly to the Superior Court demonstrates that the ZBA was not intended to have any role in the site plan approval or amendment process, whether undertaken by the Planning Board or the City Planner. See Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance §§ 1003-6(1)(b), 1114 (Feb. 17, 2004). [¶20] In sum, given the current state of the City’s Ordinance, we interpret the Ordinance to provide equally that any party with standing10—whether applicant 10 WWS offers no support for its contention that because Desfosses failed to oppose WWS’s initial site plan approval proceedings, she lacked standing to challenge the later site plan amendment. Desfosses, as an abutting landowner, has standing as a general matter to challenge the land use approvals of her neighbor, and has a particular interest in WWS’s construction of a retaining wall and fence along their common boundary. See Wister, 2009 ME 66, ¶¶ 12-13, 974 A.2d 903. Although Desfosses did not participate in the initial site plan approval proceedings, she is not challenging the City’s decision in those initial proceedings. Instead, she challenges only the City Planner’s amendment to that approval. Cf. Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2010 ME 78, ¶¶ 11-15, 2 A.3d 284. 13 or nonapplicant—may timely appeal a City Planner’s decision on a site plan amendment—whether a major or minor site plan—to the City’s Planning Board.11 By this interpretation, Desfosses’s appeal of the City Planner’s approval of the site plan amendment was properly before the Planning Board, and the Planning Board erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction.12 We therefore vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand the site plan amendment appeal to the Superior Court with instructions to remand the matter to the Planning Board for consideration of Desfosses’s appeal on its merits. Nor are we persuaded by WWS’s argument that Desfosses waived her due process arguments. Cf. Antler’s Inn & Rest., LLC v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2012 ME 143, ¶ 9, 60 A.3d 1248. 11 The Planning Board conducts a de novo review of a City Planner decision on a site plan amendment. Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1114 (Feb. 17, 2004) (“This appeal may include new evidence and testimony.”). Any subsequent appeal of the Planning Board’s decision is taken to the Superior Court pursuant to Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1003-6(1)(b) (Feb. 17, 2004). 12 Further, although the City’s actions in failing to provide Desfosses with notice of the requested amendment and the approval of the amendment are not before us in this appeal, we reject WWS’s unsupportable contention that “[t]here is no way that permission to construct a retaining wall to protect Desfosses’s property can be viewed as a governmental deprivation of her property” in the context of a due process analysis. Cf. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Me. Const. art. I, § 6-A; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976); Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 1999 ME 73, ¶ 13 & n.6, 728 A.2d 1268. On the contrary, Desfosses enjoys a protected property interest in WWS’s ability to construct a retaining wall and fence along their common boundary, and has a right to the notice and opportunity to be heard in all proceedings related to that interest that are the hallmarks of due process. See, e.g., Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 2013 ME 105, ¶ 15, 82 A.3d 148 (“Both an applicant and members of the public who oppose a project are entitled under the Due Process Clause of the United States and Maine Constitutions to a fair and unbiased hearing.” (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted)); Wister, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 21, 974 A.2d 903; Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick, 2000 ME 157, ¶ 8 n.4, 757 A.2d 773; Kirkpatrick, 1999 ME 73, ¶ 15, 728 A.2d 1268; see also Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 1101 (Feb. 17, 2004) (recognizing among its purposes the goal of addressing “the value and rights of adjoining properties”). 14