Opinion ID: 2279892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Board of Selectmen's Action

Text: [¶ 14] The Cliff House argues that if section 1252 enables the Board to review whether the proposed sewer extension is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Board in its administrative capacity. The Cliff House contends the comprehensive plan is impermissibly vague; therefore, any decision based on it is arbitrary, unequal, and a violation of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Town argues that the plan contains sufficient qualitative standards and that section 1252 permissibly allows review based on such standards. We agree. [¶ 15] We presume a statute is constitutional and will invalidate it only when there is a clear showing by `strong and convincing reasons' that it conflicts with the Constitution. State v. McGillicuddy, 646 A.2d 354, 355 (Me.1994) (quoting Opinion of the Justices, 623 A.2d 1258, 1262 (Me.1993)). We find no such reasons in this case. [¶ 16] The Legislature may delegate to municipal boards discretionary authority to approve or disapprove development projects as the board determines best serves the public interest, provided the Legislature establishes adequate standards to limit and guide the board's decision. See, e.g., Chandler v. Town of Pittsfield, 496 A.2d 1058, 1062 (Me.1985). In assessing the constitutionality of a legislative delegation of authority, we are obliged to review the entire relevant legislative scheme. Lewis v. State Dept. of Human Servs., 433 A.2d 743, 746 (Me.1981). First, section 1252(7) provides specific guidelines by requiring municipalities to review whether a proposed sewer extension is consistent with adopted municipal plans and ordinances regulating land use. Second, because section 1252(7) allows review using a municipality's comprehensive plan, any such plan must in turn contain sufficient guidelines for the statutory scheme to pass constitutional muster. Contrary to the Cliff House's contention, the plan is not impermissibly vague. The plan provides numerous policy statements outlining standards for future development and it functions as an adequate guide for the purposes for which it is used here. Cf. LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265 (when faced with multiple goals of protecting residential neighborhoods and promoting economic opportunity and commercial development, a municipality must accommodate the multiple goals in a manner that advances the overall best interests of the municipality as defined by the comprehensive plan read as a whole). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.