Opinion ID: 2010717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Section 480-D(1) Analysis

Text: [¶ 33] The Ulianos contend that the administrative record does not support the Board's conclusion that the proposed pier will unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic uses. Specifically, they assert that the Board failed to explain the significance of the natural resource at issue and that the natural resource must be of special significance to justify the denial of their permit. They further assert that the Board mischaracterized the shoreline as relatively undisturbed and unobstructed, and contend that the shoreline is substantially developed based on the presence of four existing piers and numerous structures, particularly stairways. Finally, they contend that the Board erred by distinguishing two of the four alleged piers as grandfathered piers, and that section 480-D(1) does not permit the Board to distinguish between piers that are grandfathered and those that are not. [¶ 34] Contrary to the Ulianos' first assertion, although the Board must consider the significance of the natural resource, it is not required by statute or rule to expressly find that the resource is an area of special significance in order to deny a permit. As a coastal wetland, the shoreline at issue has already been designated as a resource[] of state significance having great scenic beauty and unique characteristics, 38 M.R.S. § 480-A, and the Department has already determined that [a]ll coastal wetlands ... are considered wetlands of special significance, 2 C.M.R. 06 096 310-3 § 4 (2007). As the Legislature and the Department have already found coastal wetlands to be of special significance, the Board is not required to make an explicit finding that the shoreline is particularly significant before denying the Ulianos' permit. [8] [¶ 35] The Ulianos' additional reliance on Kroeger for the proposition that the Board was required to make an express finding of special significance is misplaced. The Ulianos contend that, in Kroeger, the Department found that Somes Sound was a significant natural resource that justified the denial of a pier permit, and that the Board must make a similar finding here before denying their permit. Although in Kroeger the Department noted that the proposed pier was located in the only natural fjord on the east coast of the United States, 2005 ME 50, ¶ 10, 870 A.2d at 569-70 (quotation marks omitted), this fact was not dispositive. Rather, the location of the proposed pier in Somes Sound was one of several factors leading to the Department's conclusion that the proposed pier would unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic uses. See id. ¶¶ 10-14, 870 A.2d at 569-570; see also Uliano I, 2005 ME 88, ¶ 24, 876 A.2d at 22 (noting that in Kroeger the Department considered the significance of Somes Sound in considering the uses of the natural resource). [¶ 36] Contrary to the Ulianos' next assertion, the Board did not lack evidentiary support for its characterization of the shoreline as relatively undisturbed and unobstructed. The Ulianos misapprehend the record in arguing that the shoreline between Hadley Point and Parker Point contains four piers. As evidence for their position, the Ulianos cite to the Department's original order from 2001 approving the Ulianos' permit. However, the record developed after the Department's original order supports the Board's finding that there was undisputed evidence that the only existing piers between Parker Point and Hadley Point are two grandfathered piers located in Emery Cove ... [and an] older walkway structure. In particular, the evidence supports the Board's finding that the two piers cited by the Ulianos, the Milliken/Northern Lights and Moya piers, are both located east of Parker Point in Frenchman's Bay. [¶ 37] Moreover, the Ulianos' contention that evidence of stairways along the shore compels a finding that the shoreline is developed is inapt. The Board found that the [a]ccess to the coastal wetland in this area is achieved primarily by individual walkways, paths or stairways to the beach. Although the interveners testified that the number of stairways had grown over the years, and that these structures were not ideal, their testimony did not suggest that these structures unreasonably interfere with the scenic and aesthetic uses of the shoreline, nor did other evidence establish this point. Rather, the evidence supported the Board's finding that because the primary access to the shoreline was achieved through stairways and walkways rather than piers, the Ulianos' proposed pier would dominate the landscape such that it would unreasonably interfere with the scenic and aesthetic uses of the shoreline. Such evidence included testimony that the Ulianos could not see any piers along Eastern Bay from their project site, that the Ulianos' pier would be the first individual recreational pier within Eastern Bay, and that the two piers in Emery Cove were tucked away and not visible from the rest of Eastern Bay. [¶ 38] Regarding the Ulianos' final assertion, the Board did not attach significant meaning to the term grandfathered in describing the two existing piers located in Emery Cove. The Board's finding that the shoreline was relatively undisturbed and unobstructed was conditioned on evidence showing that there was an absence of piers in the vicinity, not on evidence showing that the Board ignored the presence of piers due to their designation as grandfathered piers. As the Board suggests in its brief, the term grandfathered is a shorthand, though technically imprecise reference that the two piers were built prior to the enaetment of NRPA. There is no error in the Board's use of the term in this manner.