Opinion ID: 1540077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ZBA's Decision

Text: [¶ 27] We review the decision of the ZBA directly for an abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Camp v. Town of Shapleigh, 2008 ME 53, ¶ 9, 943 A.2d 595, 598. Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion.... Id. (quotation marks omitted). We do not make any findings other than those found explicitly or implicitly by the Board, and we do not substitute our judgment for that of the Board. Id. [¶ 28] The ZBA applied the factors provided in 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(4) to determine whether to grant Moore a variance from the driveway setback requirement in the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. [¶ 29] Section 4353(4) provides in relevant part: [T]he board may grant a variance only when strict application of the ordinance to the petitioner and the petitioner's property would cause undue hardship. The term undue hardship as used in this subsection means: A. The land in question can not yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted; B. The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood; C. The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; and D. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(4). [¶ 30] Only the ZBA's findings as to the first element are in dispute. We have held that: The reasonable return prong of the undue hardship test is met where strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in the practical loss of all beneficial use of the land. Reasonable return is not the maximum return that could be afforded by a property. Economic proof that no reasonable return is possible is not required. Toomey v. Town of Frye Island, 2008 ME 44, ¶ 15, 943 A.2d 563, 567 (quotation marks & internal citations omitted). [¶ 31] Although Moore's lots might have held some value without driveway access, given its proximity to a golf course and conservation lands, the ZBA's determination that, without a driveway allowing access to the lots, Moore will suffer the practical loss of all beneficial use of the lots is not clearly erroneous. The ZBA's decision is supported by substantial record evidence. [7] The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the Superior Court to affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals.