Opinion ID: 1904856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uses Omitted from the Land Use Table

Text: If in the opinion of the Code Enforcement Officer a proposed use is not specifically mentioned, or covered by any general category in the enumeration of permitted or prohibited uses for each district, said use shall only be granted upon showing by the applicant that the soils, location and lot are suitable for the proposed use and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property by adjacent landowners and that the use will conform to all other requirements of the district involved and the performance standards of Sections Sixteen and Seventeen of this Ordinance. [2] [¶ 4] The Planning Board heard a public presentation on the proposal in August 2005, and held a formal public hearing in September 2005 attended by some 100 citizens. At that hearing, the results of a vehicle traffic peer review study commissioned by the Board were presented. In October 2005, the Planning Board held a final meeting to consider additional information it had received concerning the proposal. In extensive written findings, the Planning Board found that Poland Spring's project met the standards set out in the ordinance to qualify as an omitted use in the rural residential district. After attaching numerous conditions to the permit, the Planning Board approved it by a 4-1 vote. [¶ 5] WMRRL appealed the Planning Board's decision to the BOA. Following two public hearings in January 2006, the BOA upheld all of the Planning Board's findings and conclusions save one: it concluded by a 3-2 vote that the Planning Board erred in finding that the proposed use would not unreasonably interfere with the use, enjoyment and property values of the adjacent land owners in violation of Section 5D. The BOA granted WMRRL's appeal and vacated the Planning Board's decision to grant the permit. [¶ 6] Poland Spring filed a complaint pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B in the Superior Court, seeking to reverse the BOA's action. In its decision, the court found that the Planning Board correctly categorized the loadout facility as an omitted use under the land use ordinance, meaning the project would qualify for a permit under section 5(D) if: (1) the soils, location and lot were suitable; (2) there was no unreasonable interference with adjacent landowners' use and enjoyment of their property; and (3) the project conform[ed] to all other requirements of the district involved, and with the standards outlined in section sixteen of the ordinance. [¶ 7] The court focused on the second and third of these requirements. [3] It concluded, contrary to the BOA, that the Planning Board's finding that the project would not unreasonably interfere with adjoining landowners' property rights was supported by substantial evidence in the record. [¶ 8] In analyzing the third requirement, the court looked to both the ordinance and the comprehensive plan, considering their statements of purpose for the rural residential district. Section fourteen of the ordinance, specifically governing the rural residential district, states that: The purpose of the Rural Residential District is to provide protection to the Town's rural resources; timber harvesting and growing areas, agricultural areas, natural resource based, business and recreation areas, open spaces, and rural views; while maintaining a rural land use pattern much like that which existed in Fryeburg in the last century; large contiguous open space areas, farmland, land in the Tree Growth tax classification and other forest land, land in which the predominant pattern of development consists of homes and compatible, non-intensive home occupations and businesses interspersed among large open spaces. [¶ 9] The comprehensive plan lists ten various techniques which will foster the ruralness we all enjoy. One of the ten states: The only business-type of land uses to be allowed in the rural area will be resource-based businesses, home occupations and other home-based businesses, businesses that while perhaps are not in the home are located on the same or adjoining lot(s), and low impact businesses. Low impact businesses would be those which are limited in size or amount of traffic. [¶ 10] First examining the ordinance, the court found that although the Planning Board erred in finding that Poland Spring's project qualified as a natural resource-based business, there was substantial evidence in the record to support its conclusion that the loadout facility constituted a non-intensive business. Additionally, the court found no error in the Planning Board's conclusion that the project complied with all requirements imposed by section sixteen of the ordinance. [¶ 11] The court found, however, that in applying the land use ordinance the Planning Board had not considered the comprehensive plan's provision that businesses in the rural residential district were to be low impact enterprises limited in size or the amount of traffic. In a later decision the court explained that, in its view, section 5(D)'s requirement that the project conform to all other requirements of the district involved included requirements found in the comprehensive plan. [¶ 12] In sum, the Superior Court found that Poland Spring's project satisfied all of the requirements of section 5(D) of the ordinance, governing omitted uses generally, and also satisfied the non-intensive standard found in the purpose clause of section fourteen of the ordinance, specifically governing the rural residential district. The court found that the low impact requirement contained in the comprehensive plan, which it incorporated into the ordinance through section 5(D)'s all other requirements of the district involved clause, had not been addressed. Accordingly, the court remanded Poland Spring's application back to the Planning Board for findings on whether the project met the comprehensive plan's low impact standard. [¶ 13] Following the remand and our subsequent dismissal of Poland Spring's interlocutory appeal in Griswold, the Planning Board held three preliminary meetings, a workshop session, and another public hearing. On November 13, 2007, the Planning Board met to decide on Poland Spring's application for the second time. Explicitly restricting itself to the issue identified by the Superior Court, the Planning Board decided by a 3-1 vote that the loadout facility was not a low impact business under the comprehensive plan, and denied the permit. [4] [¶ 14] Poland Spring appealed the Planning Board's decision to the BOA, which affirmed 3-1, and then to the Superior Court, which also affirmed. This appeal followed.