Opinion ID: 2372257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exception to the Setback Requirements

Text: The Macks' proposed building site is subject to section 19-3-6 of the Cape Elizabeth zoning ordinance because it is within 250 horizontal feet of the normal high water mark of ... [a] salt water body. Section 19-3-6(i) requires that residences and other improvements be set back certain specified distances from the water. However, the Board may reduce setback requirements pursuant to section 19-2-8(c) on a finding that the reduced setback will satisfy the following nine criteria: (1) will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions; (2) will not result in erosion or sedimentation; (3) will not result in water pollution; (4) will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat; (5) will conserve shoreland vegetation; (6) will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (7) will conserve actual points of public access to waters; (8) will conserve natural beauty; and (9) will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use. The Board denied the Macks' application for reduced setbacks, finding that their request failed to meet the first and eighth criteria for the following reasons: `1. Will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions': the Board found that wave action could make the residence unsafe for its inhabitants, that storm action could so damage the entrance drive as to leave the inhabitants isolated in a dangerous position, that damage to the drive could have damaging and unhealthful effects on the marsh, and that the raised drive could increase the hazards of extreme storm and tidal effects on neighboring property; `8. Will conserve natural beauty': the Board found that the proposed building location is exceptional so that almost anything constructed there would detract from its natural beauty, that the proposed drive could lead to the beach and marsh being damaged or washed out with the loss of their natural beauty, and that while the proposed residence might be handsome, and might not block views of the ocean from public facilities, it would detract from the natural beauty of the setting. The Superior Court held that the Board's factual findings that the proposed house would be unsafe and would not conserve natural beauty were not supported by substantial evidence on the record. The court further found, as a matter of law, that denial of the building permit solely for aesthetic reasons was unconstitutional. Since the Board had determined that the Macks' proposal satisfied the other seven criteria for an exception, the court ordered the Board to issue the Macks a permit. The standard of review is whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023, 1026 (Me.1982). No presumption of validity attaches to the Superior Court judgment where, as here, the Superior Court makes its decision entirely from the record developed at the zoning board of appeals level. Gulick v. Board of Environmental Protection, 452 A.2d 1202, 1209 n. 6 (Me.1982). An appellate court, in reviewing zoning board action, is not free to make findings of fact independently of those found by the municipal zoning authority. It may not substitute its judgment for that of the municipal body, but is limited to determining whether, from the evidence of record, facts could reasonably have been found by the zoning board to justify its decision. Harrington v. Town of Kennebunk, 459 A.2d 557, 561 (Me.1983); Driscoll, 441 A.2d at 1026. That the record contains evidence inconsistent with the result or that inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from the evidence does not render the Board's findings invalid if a reasonable mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support the Board's conclusion. In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 741 (Me.1973). The burden of persuasion in the Rule 80B action rests on the Macks, as the parties seeking to overturn the Board's decision. See Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, 450 A.2d 475, 479 (Me.1982). Trundy Point is a bald peninsula of ledge protruding into the ocean and covered in part by soil and grass. The ledge rises jaggedly to a height of about 22 feet from the ocean. The proposed house would sit at the point of highest elevation. The entrance drive would pass over the neck of the peninsula, which is lower than the adjoining mainland and the house site. The plans call for landfill under the driveway, so that the completed driveway would be three to four feet higher than the present neck of the peninsula. The house is designed to be impervious to airborne spray but would not be able to withstand the direct force of breaking waves. Thus, the two crucial safety concerns are whether waves during storms would reach the level of the house and whether storm waves would damage the entrance drive, leaving the inhabitants isolated in a dangerous position. Various expert witnesses testified on behalf of the Macks at the Board hearing. Barry Timson, a coastal geologist, predicted that even in an extreme, 200-year storm, the house would not be subjected to mass water pressure or running up of waves. The Macks' architect and design engineer testified to the design strength of the roadway. They conceded that waves would wash over the roadway during severe storms but expressed confidence that the roadway would not be damaged. The architect conceded that in the long run the roadway might require maintenance from the effect of the waves. The witnesses who testified that the project would be unsafe were local residents opposed to its construction. Two neighbors said that during the blizzard of 1978, a 100-year storm, they saw waves wash completely over the proposed house site. During the 1978 storm, one neighbor saw waves carry debris as large as a telephone pole against the shoreline in similarly exposed places. He said the debris actually filled living rooms, went [through] picture windows, darn near killed people. A fourth resident, an architect with forty-five years' experience, doubted that the roadway could be designed to withstand the pounding of storms. In rebuttal, the Macks' geologist stated that waves could not have washed over the house site during the 1978 storm; if they had, the soil on the site would have been completely washed away. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that wave action could make the house unsafe for its inhabitants and could damage the entrace drive, leaving the inhabitants isolated in a dangerous position. Although the Board could not have validly based its decision against the Macks solely upon its visceral reaction to the project, V.S.H. Realty, Inc. v. Gendron, 338 A.2d 143, 145 (Me. 1975), it was not compelled to accept the conclusions of the Macks' experts. Cf. Kennebec Savings Bank v. Chandler, 447 A.2d 824 (Me.1982) (judge as factfinder need not accept conclusions of independent appraiser of market value); Qualey v. Fulton, 422 A.2d 773 (Me.1980) (judge as factfinder may reject uncontradicted testimony based on witness's lack of credibility). [1] On the first point, the safety of the house, the prediction of the Macks' geologist that waves could not reach the level of the house was pitted against neighbors' testimony of their direct observations to the contrary. The Board could have believed the neighbors instead of the geologist, although it was not compelled to do so. Expert predictions that a structure will prevail against the hostile forces of nature have not always proved infallible. [2] On the second point, the Board could have believed the architect neighbor that the roadway would not survive the pounding of waves. Accordingly, the Superior Court erred in reversing the Board on the health-and-safety criterion for a setback exception. Because an applicant for a reduced setback must satisfy all nine criteria, we need not reach the issue of conservation of natural beauty.