Opinion ID: 2326591
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Town's Interpretation of the Ordinance

Text: [¶ 10] Peregrine contends that the Planning Board and ZBA erred in their interpretation of the Ordinance with respect to the definition of dormitory. Peregrine asserts that the Ordinance contemplates a definition of dormitory that is distinguishable from a multifamily dwelling, and that the definition of dormitory that the Boards implicitly adopted creates an unreasonably broad definition that would encompass any multifamily building or apartment building in the Town of Orono that rents to students. [¶ 11] The Town asserts that although neither the Planning Board nor the ZBA articulated a definition of what constitutes a dormitory under the Ordinance, both Boards implicitly concluded that the term dormitory included large-scale residential developments designed and intended primarily for lease to students, and containing a number of common facilities and services for that purpose. [2] The Town asserts that the Boards may logically and reasonably interpret dormitory in a manner that reduces the number of proposed projects that would qualify as multifamily dwellings. [¶ 12] Neither Board explicitly adopted a definition of dormitory. Nevertheless, the Town and the intervenors emphasize that what makes this proposed development a dormitory is Peregrine's acknowledgement that its project will be used primarily for students. Off-campus student use is not, however, a criterion stated in the Ordinance or in any of the dictionary definitions of dormitory that are part of the administrative record and were considered by the Boards. [¶ 13] Our examination of the meaning of the word dormitory as used in Orono's Ordinance begins with the Ordinance's provisions. See Priestly, 2003 ME 9, ¶ 7, 814 A.2d at 997 (stating, [t]he terms or expressions in an ordinance are to be construed reasonably with regard to both the objectives sought to be obtained and the general structure of the ordinance as a whole (quotation marks omitted)). Although there is ambiguity in the relevant Ordinance provisions, the cornerstone of the Ordinance's definition of multifamily dwelling [3] is that it is a residential building containing dwelling units. Ordinance § 18-31. The Ordinance's definition of dwelling unit emphasizes that the unit contain[s] independent cooking and sleeping facilities. Id. It is apparent that Peregrine's application proposes independent cooking and sleeping facilities in each dwelling unit and, therefore, satisfies the Ordinance's criteria for a multifamily dwelling. [¶ 14] The Ordinance does not define the term dormitory, but it does define commercial dormitory. The focal point of the definition of commercial dormitory is that the premises contain rooming units. Id. A commercial dormitory is a subset of dormitory, and therefore informs the ordinance's use of the word dormitory. The Ordinance's definition of rooming unit emphasizes that each unit's room or rooms... [are] intended to be used for living and sleeping but not for cooking or eating purposes. Id. Although the definition of commercial dormitory is more expansive than rooming unit because a commercial dormitory is a dormitory with or without individual cooking facilities, the emphasis of the Ordinance's definition of rooming unit is on units for living and sleeping but not for cooking and eating purposes. This is akin to the statutory definition of dormitory in 25 M.R.S.A. § 2463-A(1)(C) (Supp.2003), [4] which emphasizes that a dormitory is a building containing sleeping accommodations. [¶ 15] Accordingly, based on the Ordinance's relevant provisions, Peregrine's proposed project is more in the nature of multifamily housing and less in the nature of a commercial dormitory as those terms are employed in the Ordinance. The Town and the intervenors would have us conflate these terms so as to transform the meaning of multifamily dwelling into a dormitory if enough students live there. Counsel for the Town and the intervenors conceded at oral argument that if students were not allowed to live there, Peregrine's proposed use would not be a dormitory. There is no indication in the Ordinance, however, that a multifamily dwelling and a dormitory are structures that are to be distinguished by the predominant type of individuals  whether students, the elderly, the handicapped, or others  residing in the structure. Ordinance § 18-31. Moreover, such an interpretation could produce absurd results because it would render every multifamily dwelling unit in the Town of Orono that is occupied by three or more unrelated students a dormitory, which is a prohibited use outside of the University District. We reject such an interpretation. See Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150, ¶ 4, 698 A.2d 492, 493 (interpreting statutory language to avoid absurd, inconsistent, unreasonable or illogical results). [¶ 16] Our interpretation of the Ordinance's provisions is consistent with the four definitions of dormitory in the record that were supplied to the Boards. Each of the four definitions include two alternative definitions: (1) a room, or rooms, or a large room with many beds, for sleeping; and (2) a building housing a number of persons at a school or college. Two of the dictionary entries provided include a third alternative definition: a residential community whose inhabitants commute to nearby employment or recreation. None of the definitions in the record combine these separate definitions. In other words, there is no single, customary dictionary definition of dormitory. [¶ 17] Applying Peregrine's proposed use to the first definition  a room, or rooms, or a large room with many beds, for sleeping  it would appear distinguishable from a dormitory based on the fact that each of the dwelling units will be an independent housekeeping unit, with kitchen and bath facilities. The proposed units are not limited to sleeping rooms. However, this definition is the most consistent with the nature of the proposed use and the identity of most of the intended occupants. [¶ 18] Applying the proposed use to the second definition  a building housing a number of persons at a school or college  Peregrine's project is distinguishable from a dormitory because, as off-campus housing, it is not at a school or college. The third definition does not apply because the act of leaving the housing area by way of commuting and going to nearby employment or recreation are not required of the inhabitants. [¶ 19] In summary, because the Ordinance lacks a more restrictive definition of the term dormitory than the dictionary definitions that were provided, and because each of the dwelling units would contain independent cooking and sleeping facilities, Peregrine's application satisfies the Ordinance's criteria for a multifamily dwelling. Contrary to the Town's position, there is no indication in the Ordinance that a dormitory is a structure defined by the types of individuals who would reside in the structure. The Town of Orono may not deny applications for development by using a more restrictive standard for regulation than is contained in its Ordinance. [¶ 20] We are unpersuaded by and decline to address the remaining arguments advanced by the Town and the intervenors. The entry is: Judgment vacated and remanded to Superior Court for remand to the Orono Planning Board and ZBA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.