Opinion ID: 2279892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Decision of the Board of Selectmen

Text: [¶ 11] The Cliff House and the District argue that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. The Town contends that the Board's decision is supported by both express and implicit findings revealed by the record as a whole. [¶ 12] The contentions raised by the Cliff House and the District are based on an erroneous perception regarding the concerns of the Board and its concomitant findings of fact. They argue that the project would use a maximum of about 10% of the remaining capacity of the treatment plantan insignificant amount. While that statement may be true, the issue before the Board concerned what portion of the excess remaining capacity would be used, i.e., the difference between actual use and the design projection. [3] The project would use about 38% of the unused excess capacity of the treatment facility. [4] It is that figure the Board characterized as significant. [¶ 13] The Board's conclusions are consistent with policies enumerated in the comprehensive plan. See F.S. Plummer Co. v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 612 A.2d 856 (Me. 1992) (denial of zoning change request proper because in basic harmony with comprehensive plan); LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 528 A.2d 1262 (Me.1987) (grant of zoning change request proper because in basic harmony with comprehensive plan). The Board found that the proposed sewer extension would use a significant portion of the excess remaining capacity of the treatment facility and therefore the project threatened to deplete capacity needed to ensure environmentally sound development in Ogunquit. We conclude the Board's decision is supported by the record as a whole and is not without reason. See Glasser v. Town of Northport, 589 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Me.1991) (quoting Mack v. Municipal Officers of Cape Elizabeth, 463 A.2d 717, 720 (Me.1983)) (That the record contains evidence inconsistent with the result or that inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from the evidence does not render [a municipal agency's] findings invalid if a reasonable mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support the [agency's] conclusion.).