Opinion ID: 1927000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantial Evidence in the Record

Text: [¶ 12] Adelman next maintains that the Planning Board's approval of the conditional use permit was unsupported by competent evidence and does not comply with the Land Use Ordinance. WMTW and the Town contend that substantial evidence supported the Planning Board's decision. Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion; the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions does not render the evidence insubstantial. See Sproul, ¶ 8, 746 A.2d at 372 (quoting Veilleux v. City of Augusta, 684 A.2d 413, 415 (Me.1996)). We will not substitute our own judgment for the Planning Board's judgment. See Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916 (Me.1995). To vacate the Planning Board's findings, Adelman must demonstrate that no competent evidence supports the Planning Board's conclusions. See id. Adelman is unable to satisfy this burden. [¶ 13] Adelman claims that WMTW failed to satisfy the criteria of section 3(1) and 3(3) for a conditional use permit as required by article IX, § 3 of the Baldwin Land Use Ordinance. Section 3(1) provides that the proposed use must not have a significant adverse impact upon the value or quiet possession of surrounding properties greater than would normally occur from such a use in the district, and that the Board must consider five criteria when making this determination. The Board is required to consider: (a) the size of the proposed use compared with surrounding uses; (b) the intensity of the proposed use, including amount and type of traffic to be generated, hours of operation, expanse of pavement, and similar measures of intensity of use, compared with surrounding uses; (c) the potential generation of noise, dust, odor, vibration, glare, smoke, litter and other nuisances; (d) unusual physical characteristics of the site, including size of the lot, shape of the lot, topography, and soils, which may tend to aggravate adverse impacts upon surrounding properties; (e) the degree to which landscaping, fencing, and other design elements have been incorporated to mitigate adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Baldwin Land Use Ordinance, article IX, § 3(1). [¶ 14] Substantial testimony supported the Planning Board's conclusion that WMTW satisfied this criteria. The testimony offered by WMTW indicated that the completed WMTW tower would not have a significant negative impact on the surrounding property values in the Town of Baldwin and that any impact would not be greater than would normally occur from such a use in the zoning district. The opponents to the permit presented evidence stating that the property value may decrease by five to fifteen percent. The Board is not bound to accept any particular evidence as true; as fact-finder, it has the obligation to determine credibility. See Sproul, ¶ 9, 746 A.2d at 372 (stating that as fact-finder, the Planning Board is allowed to weigh the evidence and make a decision based upon its perception of the evidence.) Moreover, even if the Board had accepted the evidence as to a decrease in value, it could have found that a five to fifteen percent decrease in property value was not a significant negative impact. [¶ 15] Pursuant to section 3(1)(a), the Board considered the size of the tower compared with surrounding uses. They inquired into whether the tower needed to be 1667 feet tall. WMTW explained that the tower needed to be 1667 feet tall because the height of the tower correlated to the strength of the signal. [6] [¶ 16] The Board heard testimony concerning the nuisance factors it was required to consider pursuant to section 3(1)(c). The evidence demonstrated that from 1000 feet away the tower would sound like the rustling of leaves; that the sound level would decrease further away from the tower; and that human hearing is relatively insensitive to the low frequencies of sound created by the tower. The testimony indicated that the lighting used on the tower would be FAA compliant and a state-of-the-art dual lighting system that minimizes glare by confining the light from the strobes and the beacon to the narrowest possible area above and below the horizon. The closer a residence is to the tower, the less visible the lights will be, and the homes will be 100 feet below the lowest level of lights on the tower. The evidence before the Board demonstrated that the radio frequency emissions from the tower did not pose a risk of exposure to high levels of radio frequency because the emissions would be less than one percent of the maximum permitted by the FCC. [7] [¶ 17] The Planning Board also was offered evidence regarding WMTW's compliance with section 3(1)(e) regarding the degree to which the design elements mitigate the adverse impact upon neighboring properties. First, WMTW presented testimony that the entire tower complex, including the parking, control building and security fencing, would only utilize less than two acres of the 322 acre plot of land WMTW owned. WMTW also presented two photographs of simulated views of the tower from different locations in the town and beyond the town limits. When the Board discussed this criteria, it noted the testimony stating that the tower was designed to fall within the limits of WMTW's land; that it would be impossible to build a fence to mask the tower; and that a majority of the 322 acres would be used for hunting and hiking. [¶ 18] Adelman also challenges the Board's conclusion regarding the tower's effect on the natural characteristics of the land. Section 3(3) of the ordinance states the natural characteristics of the site, including topography, drainage, and relationship to ground and surface waters and flood plains, shall not be such that the proposed use when placed on the site will cause undue harm to the environment or to neighboring properties. The Board heard testimony from WMTW's engineering and planning consultant that the soil on the land of the proposed tower was workable for the project type; that the site had no wetlands on it; and that WMTW would incorporate erosion control provisions, including sedimentation barriers and drainage control devices, to minimize any environmental impact. [¶ 19] When considering the conditional use application, the Board discussed every criteria required by the Land Use Ordinance. Substantial evidence supported the Planning Board's finding that WMTW established to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that the Tower plan met the necessary criteria for the conditional use permit. Thus, the court did not err in denying Adelman's Rule 80B appeal.