Opinion ID: 4535312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Operative Decision of the Board

Text: [¶17] “Because the Board conducted a de novo review of the CEO’s determination, we review the Board’s decision directly,” Raposa v. Town of York, 2019 ME 29, ¶ 12, 204 A.3d 129, but before proceeding we must first determine which of the Board’s decisions to review, see Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, ¶ 8, 113 A.3d 1088 (stating that we review “the operative decision of the municipality” (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted)). 12 [¶18] I conclude that the Board’s August 24 written findings are the operative decision of the Board for purposes of appellate review. The Ordinance governing the Board provides: The Board of Appeals shall render a decision on an application not later than 30 days from the date of the final [h]earing. The final decision on any matter before the Board shall be made by written order signed by the Chair . . . .” Zoning Ordinance art. 18.8.3.4 (emphasis added); see 30-A M.R.S. § 2691(3)(E) (2020) (stating that a municipal board of appeals decision “must include a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis for the findings and conclusions, upon all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented”). The Board’s bylaws restate the requirement for a written decision: “The final decision on any matter before the Board shall be made by written order signed by the Chairman . . . .” York, Me., Appeals Board Bylaws § X(B) (May 26, 2004) (emphasis added). 6 [¶19] Here, the “Official Record of the Town of York Board of Appeals,” although referencing the initial July 27 vote, was signed by the Chair after the Board had approved its August 24 written findings, which are explicitly incorporated in the “Official Record.” In my view, the August 24 written 6 Available at https://www.yorkmaine.org/DocumentCenter/View/569/Appeals-Board-BylawsPDF. 13 findings narrowed the basis for granting the Raposas’ appeal to the lot-creation issue and found in favor of Gammon on the change-of-use issue. As the Court notes, the lot-creation issue is no longer contested. Court’s Opinion ¶ 7.