Opinion ID: 4535311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Review of the Planning Board’s Decision

Text: [¶19] When the BCD acts as an appellate court, “we review directly the operative decision of the municipality” for “abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the substantial evidence in the record.” Gensheimer, 2005 ME 22, ¶¶ 7, 16, 868 A.2d 161 (quotation marks omitted). In conducting our review, we are limited to reviewing the record that was before the Planning Board, the operative decision maker. See Appletree Cottage, LLC, 2017 ME 177, ¶ 11, 169 A.3d 396. [¶20] Because MacQuinn is the party seeking to vacate the Planning Board’s decision on the application for site plan review, it bears the burden of persuasion on appeal. See Anderson v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501. We accord substantial deference to a municipal agency’s factual findings. Fissmer v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2017 ME 195, ¶ 13, 170 A.3d 797. Where, as here, “an appellant had the burden of proof before the agency, and challenges an agency finding that it failed to meet that burden of proof, we will not overturn the agency fact-finding unless the appellant demonstrates that the administrative record compels the contrary findings that 14 the appellant asserts should have been entered.” Anderson, 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501; see Grant v. Town of Belgrade, 2019 ME 160, ¶ 9, 221 A.3d 112. [¶21] The Planning Board denied MacQuinn’s Site Plan Review Ordinance permit application on the basis that it failed to meet criteria set forth in three subsections of the Ordinance: J.1 (Preserve and Enhance the Landscape), J.10 (Groundwater Protection), and J.17 (Stormwater Drainage). See Site Plan Review Ordinance §§ J.1, J.10, J.17. In regard to section J.10, the Planning Board found that MacQuinn failed to demonstrate the “lack of adverse impact upon groundwater, and in particular upon the aquifer and the Cold Spring Water Company public water supply.” Ample record evidence supports this finding. The Planning Board received competent evidence from a number of experts regarding the Cold Spring groundwater supply. These experts disagreed as to the geology surrounding the spring and the threat that MacQuinn’s proposal would pose to the spring. We have stated, “A board’s finding is not unsupported by substantial evidence merely because two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.”7 Veilleux v. City of 7Indeed, it is clear that substantial evidence in the record supports either conclusion regarding groundwater impact. The BOA, in conducting its de novo review of the Gravel Ordinance permit and finding that groundwater was not threatened, observed that “Willem Bru[t]saert, a civil and environmental engineer, gave a contrary conclusion, however the Board is persuaded by the testimony from Mr. Deyling and Mr. Gerber.” See Lamoine, Me., Gravel Ordinance § 7.D.3 (March 16, 2011). The BCD concluded that that finding—by a different agency (the BOA) on a different permit (the Gravel Ordinance)—“supersed[ed]” the Planning Board’s December 2017 15 Augusta, 684 A.2d 413, 415 (Me. 1996). Regarding the Planning Board’s ability to determine credibility and to weigh evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Planning Board. See Anderson, 2009 ME 134, ¶ 27, 985 A.2d 501. [¶22] Because we conclude that the Planning Board’s finding regarding section J.10 was supported by substantial evidence, we cannot say that MacQuinn carried its burden of showing that the record compels a contrary finding in its favor. See Anderson, 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501. It is therefore unnecessary to address the remaining bases for the Planning Board’s denial. See Tompkins v. City of Presque Isle, 571 A.2d 235, 236 (Me. 1990) (relying on the record that was before the operative board and concluding that, in order for the Court to reverse the findings of the board, “the record must establish that the evidence before the board would have compelled the Board to make a positive finding that the application of the plaintiffs complied with all of the seventeen criteria set forth in the Ordinance”). In light of our holding, finding that MacQuinn failed to demonstrate a lack of adverse impact on groundwater. We discern no reason why the BOA’s groundwater finding on the Gravel Ordinance should supplant our direct analysis of the Planning Board’s Site Plan Review Ordinance decision. As such, we review the Planning Board’s decision directly, and observe that in order to vacate that decision, MacQuinn has the burden to demonstrate that the record compels contrary findings regarding each of the sections upon which the Planning Board based its denial, sections J.1, J.10, and J.17. See Anderson, 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501. 16 MacQuinn’s contention that the Planning Board should have waived criteria in section J.1 of the Site Plan Review Ordinance does not require discussion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Remanded to the Business and Consumer Docket with instructions to remand the matter to the Board of Appeals to reinstate the Planning Board’s denial of the permit application. Edmond J. Bearor, Esq.(orally), Jonathan P. Hunter, Esq., and Katie R. Foster, Esq., Rudman Winchell, Bangor, for appellant Harold MacQuinn, Inc. Maxwell G. Coolidge, Esq. (orally), Ellsworth, for appellees Friends of Lamoine and The Tweedy Trust The Town of Lamoine did not file a brief Business and Consumer Court Docket docket number CV-2018-05 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY