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

Heading: The Evidence Supporting the Practicable Alternatives Analysis

Text: [¶ 42] The Ulianos assert that the record does not support the Board's practicable alternatives analysis for a variety of reasons. They contend that the Board: (1) inaccurately described the shoreline relevant to the practicable alternatives analysis by including the shoreline of the abutting property belonging to Rosecliff Cottages; (2) erred by relying on evidence that neighbors used dinghies and outhaul systems on their own properties to conclude that such a system was a practicable alternative on the Ulianos' property; (3) erred by finding that a dinghy and outhaul system had previously been used on the Ulianos' property; (4) failed to acknowledge that the bottom stairs on the eastern shoreline of their property are inundated at high tide and unsafe to use; and (5) erred by finding that the use of a yacht club three miles away was a practicable alternative. [¶ 43] Contrary to the Ulianos' first assertion, the Board did not err in describing the relevant shoreline applicable to the practicable alternatives analysis. Although the Board noted that the Ulianos own two adjoining parcels, it concluded that [t]he proposed project would be located on the parcel associated with the primary residence and having 215 feet of shore frontage. The Board did not expand its practicable alternatives analysis to consider the existence of a practicable alternative for the Ulianos on the Rosecliff Cottages property or on any other stretch of shoreline. Indeed, the Board found that a practicable alternative existed specifically because the eastern shoreline of the Ulianos' parcel associated with their residence permitted the use of an outhaul system. [¶ 44] The Board also did not err by finding that the use of outhaul systems by neighbors was relevant to the existence of a practicable alternative. Had the Board concluded that an outhaul system was a practicable alternative based solely on evidence that neighbors used such a system on their own properties, it is likely that the Board's finding would be inadequate. However, the Board also found that there was unrefuted testimony that an outhaul system had been used previously on the Ulianos' property. Taken together, the evidence of use of outhaul systems by both neighbors and the Ulianos' predecessor support the Board's finding that the use of such a system was not only practicable, but practicable on the Ulianos' particular property. [¶ 45] In their third assertion, the Ulianos misapprehend the record evidence in contending that it is simply untrue that the Ulianos' predecessor used an outhaul system. In its decision, the Board stated that [t]here was also testimony, which was not refuted, that such a system has been used at the applicants' property in the past. The Ulianos attribute this testimony to Marty Lamson, who spoke on behalf of the Ulianos at the Board's hearing. The substance of Lamson's testimony was that he owned property behind the Ulianos, and that with permission from the Ulianos' predecessor he had used an outhaul system for two or three years from a set of stairs on the Rosecliff Cottages parcel, but had given up as it was difficult, his children had lost interest in sailing, and his business was busy. The Board accounted for Lamson's testimony in its decision by stating that [t]wo persons testified ... that they have used a dinghy to access a mooring at or in the vicinity of the project site, but that it was difficult ... [and] that they no longer maintain a boat ... [because of their] family's loss of interest in sailing and business time commitments. [¶ 46] In fact, the unrefuted testimony that the Board identified was that of Phoebe Boyer, an intervener, who testified that the previous owner of the Ulianos' property kept [a dinghy] at the steps that are on thenear the Sand Point Association property line. The Board's finding that the Ulianos could maintain an outhaul system from the existing stairway on the shoreline at the eastern end of the applicants' lot, adjacent to the Sand Point Association Common Lot is consistent with and supported by Boyer's testimony. [¶ 47] Contrary to the Ulianos' fourth assertion, although the Board could have credited the Ulianos' testimony that the bottom steps of the stairs on their eastern shoreline are inundated at high tide and therefore too dangerous to use a dinghy and an outhaul, the Board was not required to do so. See Preston v. Tracy, 2008 ME 34, ¶ 11, 942 A.2d 718, 720. The Board found that evidence of numerous small boats, including kayaks, canoes and dinghies, stored along the shoreline and the presence of outhaul lines and moorings substantiat[ed] testimony that this is a common method of accessing ... boats throughout Eastern Bay, and further found that the Ulianos' predecessor had maintained a dinghy at the steps of the eastern shoreline. The Board did not err in crediting this evidence. [¶ 48] Finally, the Board's finding that the use of a yacht club three miles away was a practicable alternative is supported by the record. The Board was presented with evidence showing that the yacht club was actively seeking new members and that it could provide deep-water access to a boat at all tides. See Kroeger, 2005 ME 50, ¶ 20, 870 A.2d at 572.