Opinion ID: 1904856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 31] The Planning Board decided in 2005 that Poland Spring met the requirements of the ordinance and issued the permit; in 2007 it did not revisit the ordinance's requirements, rather it decided only that Poland Spring did not satisfy the additional low impact criterion considered as a result of the Superior Court's remand and therefore denied the permit. Because the court erred in remanding the matter once it concluded that substantial evidence supported the Planning Board's finding that the requirements of the ordinance had been satisfied, the actions taken by the Planning Board in 2007 were nugatory. [10] See Brackett v. Town of Rangeley, 2003 ME 109, ¶ 27, 831 A.2d 422, 430 (Alexander, J., concurring) (When a public officer or agency exceeds its statutory authority or proceeds in a manner not authorized by law, its resulting orders, decrees or judgments are null and void....). Accordingly, we turn to a review of the Planning Board's original decision. [¶ 32] Throughout the permitting process, both the Fryeburg Board of Appeals and the Superior Court acted only in an appellate capacity. We therefore review the Planning Board's 2005 decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Griswold, 2007 ME 93, ¶ 9, 927 A.2d at 414 (quotation marks omitted); see Gensheimer, 2005 ME 22, ¶¶ 7, 16, 868 A.2d at 163, 166 (stating the general rule that [w]hen the Superior Court acts as an appellate court, we review directly the operative decision of the municipality (quotation marks omitted); also stating that [when] the proper role of the Board of Appeals ... is appellate review, the decision of the Planning Board is the operative decision of the municipality (quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion. Griswold, 2007 ME 93, ¶ 9, 927 A.2d at 414 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 33] The Planning Board's factual findings are reviewed deferentially; we do not substitute our own judgment for that of the Board. Id., 927 A.2d at 414-15. To the contrary, [t]he fact that the record before the Board is inconsistent or could support a different decision does not render the decision wrong; the Board's decision should be vacated only if no competent evidence exists in the record to support it. Id., 927 A.2d at 415. In contrast to the deferential review accorded the Planning Board's factual findings and conclusions, its interpretation of the ordinance to which those facts are applied presents a question of law subject to de novo review. JPP, LLC v. Town of Gouldsboro, 2008 ME 194, ¶ 8, 961 A.2d 1103, 1105. [¶ 34] In its 2005 written decision, the Planning Board recognized its obligation to apply the land use ordinance impartially, and identified the applicable provision as section 5(D), governing omitted uses: [11] [Poland Spring's] application has clearly raised concerns by residents in the general proximity of the proposed use. Significant activity to oppose the use has been generated and has been reflected in the input at Planning Board meetings and in the public hearing on the application. The Board notes also, that a number of residents have supported the use.... While the concerns expressed are deeply believed by their proponents, the Board must apply the Ordinance, and not treat the relative positions of citizens and the applicant as a referendum, with a decision based on the weight of opinion, rather than the provisions of the Ordinance itself. The core concern of the opponents to this application relate to allowance of the proposed use in a rural residential zone. As indicated below, the Board decisions are based on Section 5D of the [ordinance]Uses Omitted from the Land Use Table. In applying this section, the Board must deal with the Ordinance as it exists today. [¶ 35] Section 5(D) required the Planning Board to determine whether Poland Spring had shown that (1) the soils, location and lot were suitable for the loadout facility; (2) the facility would not unreasonably interfere with adjacent landowners' use and enjoyment of their property; (3) the use would conform to all other requirements of the district involved; and (4) the facility met the performance standards of section 16 of the ordinance. The Board's findings on each of these requirements are discussed below.
[¶ 36] The Planning Board found that the proposed project satisfied the soils, location and lot requirements based on information in the permit application and a geotechnical report submitted by an engineering firm advising Poland Spring. In its brief, the Town concedes that [t]he Court may assume the soils and lot size are suitable for the project. [¶ 37] The permit application included a significant amount of information concerning access control and traffic, landscaping and screening, erosion control, stormwater runoff, and environmental impact. The submission was accompanied by numerous detailed drawings prepared by the engineering firm showing the specifics of the plan. The information before the Board provided substantial evidence to support its finding that the project satisfied this provision.
[¶ 38] Putting primary focus on the concerns of abutting landowners, the Planning Board found that the measures proposed by Poland Spring, coupled with the conditions the Board attached to the permit, resulted in the project avoiding unreasonable interference with nearby landowners. Specifically, the Board found: (1) The project, located at least 300 feet from the nearest residence, [12] would not be visible from the road or from adjacent residential properties. Those buffers substantially exceed the required setbacks for a rural residential use, and for any other use within Fryeburg zoning districts; (2) There was no evidence that exhaust fumes would likely be transmitted through the vegetative barrier around the facility given Poland Spring's indication that its drivers do not idle their vehicles while waiting to be filled or while filling. The actual period of engine operation while the trucks are on site is quite limited; (3) With respect to lighting, in addition to the ordinance standards already in place, Poland Spring indicated that limited lighting would be used consisting of cut-off fixtures that would not reflect beyond the boundaries of its lot; (4) The Board was satisfied that the project would meet the ordinance's noise requirements by an extensive noise study submitted by a professional engineer. The study concluded that noise sources likely to be regulated by the Fryeburg Land Use Ordinance will generate sound levels at or below the applicable sound level limits without additional noise mitigation; (5) Any impact on property values would be speculative, therefore the Board could not find that such a potential impact constituted unreasonable interference; (6) Poland Spring agreed to finance signs through the Maine DOT prohibiting engine braking in the area, and agreed to instruct its drivers not to use engine braking; and (7) The project would occupy a cleared area consisting of three acres out of a 59.3 acre site, and would be buffered on all sides. The remainder of the parcel would be left in tree growth. [¶ 39] Beyond the measures proposed by Poland Spring, the Planning Board attached twelve conditions to the permit designed to reduce the impact of the loadout facility. They included construction of a 14 foot-high noise attenuation barrier to be approved by the code enforcement officer (CEO); a requirement that Poland Spring work with adjacent landowners to minimize any glare from lighting; a requirement that Poland Spring erect signs prohibiting engine braking and bar its drivers and contractors from using engine braking; the erection of appropriate entry/exit signs on Route 302; construction of a ten-foot shoulder along the approach/entry/exit portion of Route 302; financing a post-occupancy study to be commissioned by the Board, with a fair contribution toward the remediation of any deficiencies identified; introduction of a Share the Road educational effort; maintenance of the parcel in tree growth, except for the portion actually used for the facility; limits on truck loading events at the facilitytwo per hour during the hours of 6:30-8:30 A.M., 2:30-3:30 P.M., and 5:00-7:00 P.M., four per hour otherwise, with a maximum of fifty per day; mandatory water loading reports to the CEO and mandatory inspections of the facility by the CEO; and construction of the water pipeline according to Maine Department of Environmental Protection best management practices, as verified to the CEO by an independent professional peer review. [¶40] The Planning Board also noted that the ordinance provides for the possibility of uses other than residential use in the rural residential district, and therefore determined that a subjective expectation by landowners that only residences would be permitted did not by itself create an unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their property. Finally, while the Board discussed the project's traffic impact in detail in its consideration of whether the project satisfied the requirements of section 16 of the ordinance, it concluded that highway safety on Route 302, a state highway, was not a basis for finding unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of private property. [¶ 41] Giving proper deference to the Planning Board's fact-finding, on this record we cannot say that the Board's decision on this point was not supported by substantial evidence.
[¶ 42] As discussed above, we construe the requirements of the district involved clause of section 5(D) to mean the requirements of section 14 of the ordinance, a conclusion assumed by the Planning Board. [¶ 43] The Board found that the project met the dimensional standards of section 14, a finding that no party has challenged. After some debate, the Board decided that it needed to consider the purpose clause of section 14 as well. It found that Poland Spring's proposal was consistent with the stated purpose of the rural residential district in four ways: (1) The project was a natural resource based business. The Board found that the project was centered around water as a commodity, like timber harvesting or mineral extraction, which are specifically allowed uses in the district; (2) The project furthered land in the Tree Growth tax classification and other forest land by maintaining fifty-six of the fifty-nine acres in the parcel as forested; (3) The project maintain[ed][a] rural land use pattern by limiting its geographical and visual impact in a way similar to other currently-existing uses; and (4) The project was a non-intensive ... business[] interspersed among large open spaces. The Board based this finding on the permit restrictions limiting truck loading events to two per hour during peak school bus and commuting times, and four per hour otherwise, with a maximum of fifty per day. The Board noted that for eight months out of the year, the expected number of loads would average twenty-two per day. [¶ 44] Of these four findings, the Superior Court addressed only the first and last, ruling that the proposed facility was not a natural resource-based business before concluding that substantial evidence supported the Planning Board's non-intensive finding. The purpose statement of section 14 is a list of broadly-described goals; it does not assign particular weight to any single consideration. Given the Board's factual findings made when analyzing the impact of the project on adjacent landowners, which are supported by substantial evidence, its conclusion that the project was consistent with the purpose of the rural residential district was not erroneous.
[¶ 45] Section 16 of the ordinance sets out general performance standards applicable to any land use or building project. The Planning Board made findings on each of the section's twenty categories, concluding that Poland Spring's proposal met the standards. The Superior Court agreed, as does the Town on appeal. [¶ 46] The provision of section 16 most in controversy was section 16-B, dealing with access control and traffic impact. The Board considered a traffic impact study prepared by an engineering firm and submitted with Poland Spring's original application, as well as a technical traffic peer review conducted at the Town's request by an engineering firm not connected with the project. The study concluded that the project presented no major traffic concerns, and the peer review generally agreed with that assessment. [13] Taking into account the data compiled by the two engineering firms, the Planning Board made detailed findings and concluded that the project complied with section 16-B. The engineering studies provide competent evidence to support the Board's conclusion. [¶ 47] In sum, then, the Planning Board's finding that Poland Spring's proposed project complied with the requirements of section 5(D) of the Fryeburg land use ordinance was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the Board's analysis reveals no error of law. [14] Accordingly, the Superior Court erred in not affirming the Planning Board's decision to grant Poland Spring a land use permit. The entry is: Judgment vacated; remanded for entry of judgment affirming the Fryeburg Planning Board's approval of the land use permit.