Court Opinion

ID: 9700240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:16:58.190914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:05.629516
License: Public Domain

WATHEN, Chief Justice,
with whom RUDMAN, Justice, joins, dissenting.
[¶ 16] I must respectfully dissent. In my judgment the Attorney General has standing to seek judicial review. In zoning matters, a municipality acts solely as an agent of the State, see Burkett v. Youngs, 135 Me. 459, 465, 199 A. 619, 621-22 (1938), and thus the State is always a party in a zoning proceeding. We have previously recognized that “the Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the State, has the power and duty to institute, conduct and maintain such actions and proceedings as he deems necessary for the protection of public rights and to defend against any action that might invidiously interfere with the same.” Bell v. Town of Wells, 510 A.2d 509, 519 (Me.1986) (quoting In re Estate of Thompson, 414 A.2d 881, 890 (Me.1980)). Here, despite the Town’s participation in the proceeding, the Court treats the chief law officer of the State as though he were a private party. The concept of standing serves, in part, to prevent others from asserting the authority entrusted to the Attorney General. Private parties have standing to appeal an administrative ruling only if they participated in the hearing and demonstrate a particularized injury that is different than that sustained by the public in general. Pride’s Corner Concerned Citizens Ass’n v. Westbrook Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 398 A.2d 415, 417 (Me.1979); see also Ricci v. Superintendent, Bureau of Banking, 485 A.2d 645, 647 (Me.1984) (where complaint only alleges an injury suffered by all of the citizens of the State, plaintiffs did not demonstrate “particularized injury”). Today, the Court stands the judicially-crafted doctrine of standing on its head and bars the Attorney General from protecting public rights.
[¶ 17] Shoreland zoning controls are declared to be in the public interest “[t]o aid in the fulfillment of the State’s role as trustee of its waters and to promote public health, safety and the general welfare.” 38 M.R.S.A. § 435 (Pamph.1997). The Attorney General’s duty to protect the State’s waters through shoreland zoning enforcement is derived not only from the common law, but the shoreland zoning law specifically provides that “[t]he Attorney General ... may enforce ordinances adopted under this chapter [Protection and Improvement of Waters].” 38 M.R.S.A. § 444 (1989 & Pamph.1997) (emphasis added). That enforcement necessarily includes seeking judicial review of an administrative decision in order to protect the integrity of the shoreland zoning laws. This is not to suggest that the Attorney General has absolute authority to raise any issue at any time. In the present ease, the Attorney General filed a timely appeal with the Superior Court but had not participated directly in the ZBA hearing. Issue preclusion for issues not raised at the hearing is clearly called for, but I would not deny the Attorney General the opportunity to demonstrate on behalf of the State that the Board’s decision is completely without evidentiary support.
[¶ 18] In this case, the evidentiary record simply does not support the Board’s decision to grant a variance. The granting of a zoning variance is controlled by statute. The Board may grant a variance only if the applicant can show that strict application of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship defined as follows:
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.A. § 4353(4) (Supp.1997).
[¶ 19] The record does not support the Board’s decision with respect to the first *1028requirement, i.e., that the property could not yield a reasonable return without the variance. Failure to yield a “reasonable return” means the “practical loss of all beneficial use of the land.” Brooks v. Cumberland, Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶ 14, 703 A.2d 844, 848 (citations omitted). We have consistently stated that “a zoning regulation imposes undue hardship within the meaning of section 4353 only if the property subject to the regulation cannot yield a reasonable return from any permitted use.” Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, we have stated that “reasonable return is not the maximum return.” Perrin v. Town of Kittery, 591 A.2d 861, 863 (Me.1991).
[¶ 20] The reasons given for the property’s inability to yield a reasonable return were as follows: Having purchased the property from the Town, Dunn stated that he wanted “the most benefits that he could get out of it”; and, without a marina, he could not get his money back or make a profit, because the income from the rental unit was insufficient due to the lack of privacy resulting from the public boat launch. Such evidence falls far short of demonstrating that Dunn has lost all beneficial use or that he cannot yield a return from any permitted use. Rather, the record shows that there is a residential camp on the property, and, further, that it is being rented by Dunn as residential property. The fact that the camp is not as desirable as other camps because it lacks privacy does not mean that he has lost all beneficial use. His understandable desire to maximize profits does not support the conclusion that he is being denied a reasonable return.
[¶21] The Court attaches far too much importance to the late arrival of the Attorney General in this litigation. Dunn would suffer no disadvantage other than a testing of the sufficiency of the evidence he presented in support of the variance. Faced with a clear choice of either upholding the zoning law or dismissing the timely appeal of Maine’s chief law officer on the basis of standing, I choose the former.