Court Opinion

ID: 9916602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 02:50:32.363252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:43.064794
License: Public Domain

STATE OF MAINE                                              SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss.                                             CIVIL ACTION
                                                            DOCKET NO. AP-22-31

TALCOTT FRANKLIN                             )
                                             )
               Petitioner,                   )
                                             )
       v.                                    )
                                             )
TOWN OF ROME BOARD OF                        )       ORDER ON 80B APPEAL
APPEALS,                                     )
                                             )
               Respondent,                   )
                                             )
and WALDO A. BECK TRUST,                     )
                                             )
               Party-in-interest.            )

       Before the Court is Petitioner Talcott Franklin's appeal pursuant to Maine Rule of

Procedure 80B.

                                    FACTUAL BACKGROUND

       This litigation concerns the Town of Rome Planning Board's ("Planning Board") approval

of an after-the-fact permit for timber harvesting on Petitioner's property. The Planning Board

granted Petitioner's permit on May 9, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the Town Board of Appeals ("BOA")

reversed the decision of the Planning Board. Petitioner filed his 80B appeal on August 8, 2022.

                                    SOB STANDARD OF REVIEW

       In Rule 80B appeals, the court's review of municipal decisions is deferential and limited.

The court reviews the municipal decision below for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings

not supported by the evidence. Aydelott v. City ofPortland, 2010 ME 25, ,r 10, 990 A.2d 1024.

The party seeking to vacate the decision has the burden of persuasion. Friends a/Lamoine v. Town

ofLamoine, 2020 ME 70, ,r 20, 234 A.3d 214.
                                                                                     REC'D CIJMB CLERKS OFC
                                                                                     MAR 29 '23 PMi:18
                                                 1
                                         DISCUSSION

Operative Decision

       When reviewing a challenge to a municipal decision pursuant to SOB, the court reviews the

operative decision of the municipality directly. MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, LLC,

2019 ME 125, ,r 8, 214 A.3d 1. "[W]hether the operative decision of the municipality is the

Planning Board decision or the decision of the [BOA] depends on the type of review that the

[BOA] is authorized to undertake and what kind of review [the BOA] actually perform[ed]." Id.

(quoting Genshiemer v. Town ofPhippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ,r 16,868 A.2d 161). If the BOA's role

is confined to appellate review, the Plauning Board's decision is the operative decision of the

municipality. Id.

       Here, the operative decision is that ofthe Planning Board. Section 16(I)(l)(a) ofthe Town's

Shoreland Zoning Ordinance limits the BO A's review of Planning Board decisions to an appellate

basis. Petitioner argues that because the BOA received and considered new evidence--evidence

not presented to the Planning Board-the Court should consider the BOA decision to be the

operative decision in this case. Petitioner is correct that the BOA receiving and considering new

evidence clearly violates sections 16(I)(l)(a) and 16(!)(3) of the Ordinance. However, the Court

still considers the Planning Board decision to be operative.

Record

       Petitioner and Respondent have both filed an SOB record in this case. Although the parties

disagreed as to which decision below was operative, both filed a record appropriate only for review

of the BOA's decision. Neither record contains findings of fact or conclusions of law by the

Planning Board. The Court is thus unable to nndertake meaningful judicial review of the Plauning

Board's decision. Lamarre v. Town a/China, 2021 ME 45, ,r 6, 259 A.3d 764 ("It is black letter

                                                 2
law that meaningful judicial review of a decision requires that the decision contain findings of fact

sufficient to apprise the reviewing court of the decision's basis and that those findings be based on

substantial evidence in the record."). This matter must therefore be remanded to the Planning

Board. See Mills v. Town ofEliot, 2008 ME 134, ,r 20, 955 A.2d 258.

Entry is:

This case is REMANDED to Respondent Town of Rome BOA with instructions to remand the

matter to the Planning Board for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The clerk is directed to

incorporate this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated:
                                                              John~r.
                                                              Justice, Maine Superior Court

                                                  3