Opinion ID: 1904856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unreasonable Interference With Adjacent Landowners

Text: [¶ 38] Putting primary focus on the concerns of abutting landowners, the Planning Board found that the measures proposed by Poland Spring, coupled with the conditions the Board attached to the permit, resulted in the project avoiding unreasonable interference with nearby landowners. Specifically, the Board found: (1) The project, located at least 300 feet from the nearest residence, [12] would not be visible from the road or from adjacent residential properties. Those buffers substantially exceed the required setbacks for a rural residential use, and for any other use within Fryeburg zoning districts; (2) There was no evidence that exhaust fumes would likely be transmitted through the vegetative barrier around the facility given Poland Spring's indication that its drivers do not idle their vehicles while waiting to be filled or while filling. The actual period of engine operation while the trucks are on site is quite limited; (3) With respect to lighting, in addition to the ordinance standards already in place, Poland Spring indicated that limited lighting would be used consisting of cut-off fixtures that would not reflect beyond the boundaries of its lot; (4) The Board was satisfied that the project would meet the ordinance's noise requirements by an extensive noise study submitted by a professional engineer. The study concluded that noise sources likely to be regulated by the Fryeburg Land Use Ordinance will generate sound levels at or below the applicable sound level limits without additional noise mitigation; (5) Any impact on property values would be speculative, therefore the Board could not find that such a potential impact constituted unreasonable interference; (6) Poland Spring agreed to finance signs through the Maine DOT prohibiting engine braking in the area, and agreed to instruct its drivers not to use engine braking; and (7) The project would occupy a cleared area consisting of three acres out of a 59.3 acre site, and would be buffered on all sides. The remainder of the parcel would be left in tree growth. [¶ 39] Beyond the measures proposed by Poland Spring, the Planning Board attached twelve conditions to the permit designed to reduce the impact of the loadout facility. They included construction of a 14 foot-high noise attenuation barrier to be approved by the code enforcement officer (CEO); a requirement that Poland Spring work with adjacent landowners to minimize any glare from lighting; a requirement that Poland Spring erect signs prohibiting engine braking and bar its drivers and contractors from using engine braking; the erection of appropriate entry/exit signs on Route 302; construction of a ten-foot shoulder along the approach/entry/exit portion of Route 302; financing a post-occupancy study to be commissioned by the Board, with a fair contribution toward the remediation of any deficiencies identified; introduction of a Share the Road educational effort; maintenance of the parcel in tree growth, except for the portion actually used for the facility; limits on truck loading events at the facilitytwo per hour during the hours of 6:30-8:30 A.M., 2:30-3:30 P.M., and 5:00-7:00 P.M., four per hour otherwise, with a maximum of fifty per day; mandatory water loading reports to the CEO and mandatory inspections of the facility by the CEO; and construction of the water pipeline according to Maine Department of Environmental Protection best management practices, as verified to the CEO by an independent professional peer review. [¶40] The Planning Board also noted that the ordinance provides for the possibility of uses other than residential use in the rural residential district, and therefore determined that a subjective expectation by landowners that only residences would be permitted did not by itself create an unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their property. Finally, while the Board discussed the project's traffic impact in detail in its consideration of whether the project satisfied the requirements of section 16 of the ordinance, it concluded that highway safety on Route 302, a state highway, was not a basis for finding unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of private property. [¶ 41] Giving proper deference to the Planning Board's fact-finding, on this record we cannot say that the Board's decision on this point was not supported by substantial evidence.