Opinion ID: 2307544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: responsibilities of the planning board and town council

Text: [¶ 10] The Crispins, on appeal of the Superior Court's resolution of their 80B action, argue that the Planning Board failed to satisfy its obligation, set out at 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4404(9) (1996), to decide whether Maine Life Care's proposed subdivision was consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan. Because the Superior Court acted as an intermediate appellate court, we review the Board's decision directly for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See Herrick v. Town of Mechanic Falls, 673 A.2d 1348, 1349 (Me.1996). [¶ 11] In its review of any application for a proposed subdivision, the Scarborough Planning Board is required to find, inter alia, that [t]he proposed subdivision conforms with [the Town's] duly adopted... comprehensive plan. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4404(9). See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(5), (6) (1996); accord SCARBOROUGH, ME., SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS § 3(I) (1994) (requiring the Planning Board, in evaluating any proposed subdivision of land within the Town of Scarborough to determine that the subdivision [i]s in conformance with... the [Town's] Comprehensive Plan). The Planning Board also has the general responsibility under the Town's zoning ordinance to review all requests for amendments or changes [to the zoning ordinance] and [to] make its recommendations to the Town Council regarding the land use implications of the request. SCARBOROUGH, ME., ZONING ORDINANCE § II(G)(6) (1996). This particular proposal required the Planning Board to consider both Maine Life Care's subdivision application and the accompanying request for a zone change of the subject property. [¶ 12] The request for a zone change in this case was to be accomplished through the contract zoning provisions in the Town's zoning ordinance. Under those provisions, the Planning Board was required to conduct a public hearing on Maine Life Care's proposed contract zoning agreement, and to provide notice of this hearing to the public and to neighboring landowners. See id. § II(I)(1); accord 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4352(8) (Supp.1998). At the public hearing, the Board was permitted to simultaneously consider Maine Life Care's subdivision application and the proposed contract zoning agreement. See id. § II(I)(3). With regard to the proposed contract zoning agreement, as with any proposed zoning amendment, the Planning Board's responsibility was to make a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the land use implications of the proposed rezoning. See id. § II(G)(6). The Town Council, however, was charged with the ultimate authority to decide whether or not to rezone. See id. § II(I)(5). In order to approve the proposed contract zoning agreement, the Town Council was required to find that the rezoning would remain consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan. See id. § II(I). [¶ 13] The members of the Planning Board understood that the Town Council had the ultimate authority to approve a contract zoning agreement and that the Council was required to determine whether the rezoning was consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan. Certain language of exclusivity in the Scarborough Zoning Ordinance created some initial uncertainty on the part of the Board concerning its role in the factfinding process: Contract zoning ... is authorized for zoning map changes when the Town Council, exercising its sole and exclusive judgment ... determines that it is appropriate to change the zoning district classification of a parcel of land [to] allow reasonable uses of the land ... which remain consistent with the Town of Scarborough Comprehensive Plan. Id. § II(I) (emphasis added). The Board interpreted this language in the zoning ordinance to mean that the Town Council had the primary responsibility of making findings on whether the proposed project would be consistent with the Town's comprehensive plana finding which was also required for approval of Maine Life Care's subdivision application. Members of the Board repeatedly voiced their concern that they should not intrude into the decision-making process of the Council, which they recognized as a separate and distinct factfinder. [¶ 14] Nonetheless, the Planning Board also had a responsibility to determine whether the proposed subdivision was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Board, therefore, ultimately approved the plan for Maine Life Care's proposed subdivision, but conditioned its approval of the plan on the Town Council's decision. Specifically, with respect to Maine Life Care's subdivision proposal, the Board voted to find that, if the Contract Zoning Agreement is approved by the Town Council, the subdivision will be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the subdivision regulations. (Emphasis added.) By granting conditional approval on these terms, the Board fulfilled its obligation to find that the subdivision was consistent with the comprehensive plan. See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(5)(C) (allowing the Board to grant conditional approval to a subdivision application). [¶ 15] The Board's interpretation of the Town's subdivision regulations, its zoning ordinance, and the applicable statutes was not unreasonable, and its actions were designed to comply with all three. The Board and the Town Council balanced their responsibilities in a reasonable manner: both ultimately fulfilled their obligations to find that the proposed development complied with the Town's comprehensive plan. Contrary to the Crispins' argument, therefore, the Planning Board did not fail to fulfill its obligation to make this finding. [6] [¶ 16] Furthermore, we find no error in either the Town Council or the Planning Board's finding that the proposed development was, in fact, consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan. The Scarborough Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Planning Board and the Town Council in 1994, and comprises approximately 300 pages of documents, complete with detailed maps and diagrams. It sets forth many policies and goals for land use in the Town: for example, the Town should maintain and, where possible enhance, a mix of village, suburban and rural lands, and there should be ample opportunity for economic development and expansion of jobs for both the local and regional populations. SCARBOROUGH, ME., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 16-1 (1994). The Town Council specifically found that the proposed development would be consistent with many of the comprehensive plan's goals, including those of fostering and accommodating a diverse population in the Town, see id. at 15-1, promoting a pattern of land use that respects the Town's natural resources, see id. at 15-5, and assuring open spaces needed for the protection of wildlife and natural systems, see id. at 15-12. These findings are not clearly erroneous, and are sufficient to support the conclusions of the Town Council and the Planning Board. See Ogunquit Sewer Dist. v. Town of Ogunquit, 1997 ME 33, ¶ 13, 691 A.2d 654, 658; LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 528 A.2d 1262, 1264-65 (Me.1987).