Opinion ID: 2743065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existing and Permitted Uses in R-4 Zone

Text: [¶20] In addition to being consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan, conditional or contract zoning must “[e]stablish rezoned areas that are consistent with the existing and permitted uses within the original zones.” 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B). Based on our interpretation of similar language in section 4352(2), this language can be interpreted to recognize that a conditional zone is “consistent with the existing and permitted uses in the original zones” when it is in basic harmony with those existing and permitted uses. See Golder, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697; LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265. [¶21] We review the construction of an ordinance de novo, and the “terms or expressions in an ordinance are to be construed reasonably with regard to both the objectives sought to be obtained and the general structure of the ordinance as a whole.” Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 80, ¶ 9, 946 A.2d 408. Nonetheless, a municipal body’s ultimate characterization of the structure of its own ordinance is to be given substantial deference, see Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9, 828 A.2d 768, and the question on review is whether, given the evidence before it and the requirements of 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8), the 11 City Council “could rationally have adopted the conditional zone.” Golder, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697.5 [¶22] Section 4352(8)(B) requires the municipal authority to determine whether the rezoned area is consistent with the existing and permitted uses “within the original zones.” Uses contemplated in the R-4 zone can be divided into three general categories: (1) permitted residential uses; (2) permitted “other” uses, which are defined to include home occupations6 subject to the provisions of Portland City Code section 14-410; and (3) “conditional uses,” which are permitted only upon the issuance of a use permit subject to specific conditions, for certain residential purposes and certain nonresidential purposes.7 Portland, Me., Code §§ 14-102, 14-103. The proposed use is consistent with both “other” uses, namely home occupations, and “conditional” uses contemplated in the zone. [¶23] Although the proposed use by Majella Global is unlikely to meet the requirements of a home occupation because it will house more than one 5 The City Council’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. See Lane Constr. Corp. v. Town of Washington, 2008 ME 45, ¶ 13, 942 A.2d 1202. 6 Pursuant to the ordinance, “home occupations” must not occupy more than a 500 square feet or more than 25 percent of the floor area of a dwelling unit, whichever is less, and have no more than one nonresident employee. One of the permitted home occupations is “computer programming.” Portland, Me., Code § 14-410(b)(6) (Mar. 4, 2013). 7 We agree with the trial court that, to the extent that the City Council, because the property abuts the R-6 zone, considered that professional office uses are permitted in the R-6 zone, this was error. The City Council’s considerations must be limited to existing uses in the “original zones.” 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B). This does not change our conclusion that the City Council had a rational basis for its determination that the use is consistent with existing and permitted uses in the R-4 zone. 12 nonresident employee, the City’s designation of home occupations as a permitted use is relevant. Home occupations have a broader purpose under the ordinance “to allow the secondary and incidental use of a residence for the conduct of appropriate occupations whose external activity levels and impacts are so limited as to be compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood.” Portland, Me., Code § 14-410. While the scale of the proposed use would no doubt be greater than that of a home occupation, the CZA imposes a number of restraints to ensure that the proposed office use remains limited and “neighborhood compatible,” including that the business must provide off-site parking for its employees and must occupy not more than seventeen percent of the property, reserving the second and third floors for residential use.8 These conditions limit the “external activity levels and impacts” of Majella’s business in the same way that would be required of a home occupation that is permitted in the R-4 zone. [¶24] Conditional nonresidential uses under the ordinance are limited to (1) institutional uses, including elementary, middle, and secondary schools and 8 The Council also recognized in the CZA that offices in residential zones, particularly in the R-4 zone, have been limited and any allowance of an office use in the R-4 zone should only be considered for large, unique, and historically significant structures which have not previously been in residential use, and must be carefully considered and controlled to achieve an appropriate balance between policies supporting neighborhood preservation and policies supporting economic development and preservation of the City’s architectural and historic heritage . . . . 13 places of assembly (defined to include community halls and private clubs); and (2) “other” uses including daycare facilities, nursery schools, and “sheltered care group homes” for up to twelve residents plus staff. Portland, Me., Code § 14-103(a)-(b). While institutional uses, day cares, and group homes may serve the residential aspects of the R-4 zone, the language of the ordinance does not mandate that each use serve a greater community purpose. [¶25] Group homes, day care facilities, and schools may provide incidental community benefits, but they may also be privately owned and ultimately may be as “commercial” in nature as a small software development company. The record before the City Council included an extensive list of uses, including nursery schools and office space for non-resident use, that had reportedly been made of the property while it operated as a church.9 Taken as a whole, these previous uses, as well as permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 zone, such as private clubs, day cares, and group homes, each have the potential to be more disruptive than an office with a maximum of fourteen employees and limited visits by the public. 9 The list of activities previously occurring on the Property included operation of The Children’s Nursery School; operation of Motto Citizens (office space); administration of the Maine Gay Men’s Chorus (office space and a storage room); music recitals, rehearsals, and performances; church services; Waynflete Advance Leadership Training; Aerobics classes; meetings of an Alcoholics Anonymous group with more than 100 attendees; book sales; yoga classes; dance classes; and fitness classes. Notably, there is no indication that these uses existed at the time of the rezoning application at issue here or that they were permitted at the time they occurred. Remmel asserts that not all of these uses would have been legally permitted in the R-4 zone, except perhaps for the church’s ministry. 14 [¶26] Based on the evidence before it and its mandate to consider existing and permitted uses pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(8)(B), the City Council concluded that the proposed use was in basic harmony with uses in the neighborhood, which it described to “include a mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses.” Consistent with previous opinions involving a City’s application of its own ordinance to a legislative rezoning decision, see Golder, 2012 ME 76, ¶ 11, 45 A.3d 697; Nestle, 2009 ME 30, ¶ 23, 967 A.2d 707; LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265, the City Council had a rational basis on which to reach this conclusion. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded with direction to affirm the decision of the City Council. On the briefs: Danielle P. West-Chuhta, Esq., and Patricia A. McAllister, Esq., City of Portland, Portland, for appellant City of Portland Mary E. Costigan, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellant 32 Thomas Street, LLC Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esq., Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP, Portland, for appellees Charles Remmel, et al. Orlando E. Delogu, Esq., appellee pro se 15 At oral argument: Patricia McAllister, Esq., for appellant City of Portland Bruce McGlauflin, Esq., for appellees Charles Remmel et al. Orlando Delogu, Esq., pro se appellee Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2012-312 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY