Opinion ID: 2157009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Role of the Sedgwick Zoning Board of Appeals

Text: [¶ 11] Here, the Town of Sedgwick had not enacted an ordinance specifically providing for purely appellate hearings in particular instances. Although the Sedgwick Shoreland Zoning Ordinance implies that the Board may act as an appellate body, [5] it also suggests that a hearing de novo will occur. [6] Because the Ordinance fails to provide explicit guidance, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2691 applies to require that the Board undertake a de novo review of the application. [¶ 12] The Board initially appeared to undertake a hearing de novo, and it notified the parties that the hearing would be evidentiary and de novo. The members of the Board appropriately undertook a site review, heard testimony from several witnesses, and accepted documents into evidence. Those actions were consistent with the conduct of a hearing de novo. As the hearing progressed, members of the Board repeated several times that they were conducting a hearing de novo. [¶ 13] Contradicting that indication, however, was the Board's expressed belief that its task was to determine whether the Planning Board's decision was supported by the record before the Planning Board. Transcripts of the proceeding reveal several occasions when the parties and Board members expressed confusion regarding the nature of the hearing and the burden of proof. [7] As a result, neither the parties nor the Board focused their attention on the substantive issue of whether the proposed dock satisfied the Ordinance. Instead, Stewart argued that the Planning Board erred because the Schneiders failed to produce evidence before the Planning Board that could satisfy their burden of proof, and the Schneiders rested on the Planning Board's decision, contending that Stewart now bore the burden of proving that the Planning Board erred. [¶ 14] In addition, the Board listened to an audio tape recording of one of the Planning Board's meetings, and questioned several members of the Planning Board to determine their thought processes in reaching their decision. [8] The Board voted 3-2 to uphold the planning board's decision. [9] In the Board's factual findings, the two dissenting members noted that they felt that the [P]lanning [B]oard had not paid adequate attention to the letters submitted. The majority noted that the [P]lanning [B]oard acted properly and that reversing its decision would be a grave error. [¶ 15] Thus, notwithstanding the full evidentiary hearing embarked upon by the Board, it saw itself as reviewing the decision of, and the evidence presented to, the Planning Board, rather than examining the substantive merits of the permit application. As a result of this confusion, the Board accepted evidence, but nevertheless reached its decision as if it were an appellate body. Because this amalgamated process met neither the statutory nor ordinance requirements, and had the effect of depriving the applicant and interested parties of the opportunity to have the Board undertake its own analysis of the evidence, the decision of the Board cannot stand. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remand to Superior Court with instructions to remand to the Sedgwick Zoning Board of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.