Opinion ID: 1891529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grandfathering and Abandonment

Text: [¶ 11] We review directly the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See Richert v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 179, ¶ 6, 740 A.2d 1000, 1002. [¶ 12] Turbat Creek asserts that the bathhouse is grandfathered to permit occasional overnight stays, although its toilet facilities had not functioned since 1990 and its hot water facilities had not functioned since 1975. Section 8.1 of the ordinance governs nonconforming rights and provides. A non-conforming structure, use or lot is permitted to continue as it existed prior to the date such structure, use or lot became non-conforming under the provisions of this Ordinance, as amended. The availability of nonconforming uses is limited by section 8.6, which provides, If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, such use shall no longer be permitted. [¶ 13] To qualify for `nonconforming' or `grandfathered' status, it must be shown that the use existed prior to the enactment of the zoning provisions prohibiting it and that the use was `actual and substantial.' Town of Orono v. LaPointe, 1997 ME 185, ¶ 13, 698 A.2d 1059, 1062. In order to grandfather a nonconforming use, such use must reflect the nature and purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning legislation took effect and not be different in quality or character, as well as in degree, from the original use, or different in kind in its effect on the neighborhood. Keith v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n, 464 A.2d 150 (Me.1983). [¶ 14] Turbat Creek argues that its proposed use of the boathouse for unlimited overnight stays is grandfathered because such use amounts to a mere increase in the frequency of use, not a change in the nature or character of the use. In Frost v. Lucey, 231 A.2d 441 (Me.1967), we held that the prolongation of the operation of a hotel with incidental dining room service from a period of four months in the summer to a year-round activity did not amount to a prohibited expansion of a nonconforming use. See id. at 449. The principle we relied on is that: [W]here the original nature and purpose of the enterprise remain the same, and the nonconforming use is not changed in character, mere increase in the amount or intensity of the nonconforming use within the same area does not constitute an improper expansion or enlargement of such nonconforming use. Id. at 448. The holding in Frost was divided: we affirmed an injunction against catering to large parties of nonhotel patrons where the hotel had historically offered only incidental dining room service to hotel guests and casual visitors, but vacated that portion of the order enjoining year-round hotel operations and incidental dining room service. See id. at 449. Because the holding in Frost partially affirmed and partially vacated the order below, it illustrates how change in the character or quality of a use differs from mere increase in the frequency or quantity of use. [¶ 15] Here we have not only an increase in the quantity of overnight stays, but also a change in the quality of the use. The record supports the Zoning Board of Appeals's determination that Cohen's usage was far in excess of the previous occasional overnight stays. Cohen's use of the structure unequivocally changed from an accessory structure for the mainland residences to an independent living unit, exclusive of the mainland residences. [¶ 16] With respect to any more limited, occasional overnight usage, the Ordinance's abandonment clause provides that any nonconforming use that is discontinued for more than twelve months is lost. The Board's findings regarding grandfathering and abandonment are fully supported in the record.