MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisionsDecision: 2021ME38Docket: Yor-20-131Argued: April6,2021Decided: July13,2021Panel: MEAD,GORMAN,JABAR,HUMPHREY,HORTON,andCONNORS,JJ.

KEVINJ.HILL

v.

TOWNOFWELLSetal.CONNORS,J.

[¶1]AppelleeKevinHillsoughttwosetbackvariancesfromtheTownof

WellsZoningBoardofAppeals(ZBA)andwasdeniedonthebasisthathedid

notmeethisburdenofproof toshowthatgranting thevarianceswouldnot

altertheessentialcharacterofthelocality.Hill’sappealtotheSuperiorCourt

(YorkCounty,Douglas,J.)resultedinthecourt’srejectionoftheZBA’sdenialof

the variances, and an abutting landowner, intervenor Bradley Hastings, has

appealed. We vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and remand with

instructions to affirm the ZBA’s denial. The ZBA properly decided that Hill

failedtoshowthatthesizeandcharacterofhisproposedresidencewiththe

variances would conform with the neighborhood as zoned, discounting

2

grandfathered nonconforming structures, and would not degrade the

significantvalueofsurroundingenvironmentalresources.

I.BACKGROUND

[¶2]In2017,Hillpurchasedalotlocatedat12LobsterLaneonDrakes

Island in Wells.1 The lot is approximately two blocks from the beach and

borders on, and intrudes into, wetlands. These particular wetlands are of

special significance because they are contiguous to both coastal wetlands

withinthemeaningoftheNaturalResourcesProtectionAct(NRPA),38M.R.S.

§§480-Athrough480-JJ(2021),aswellastheRachelCarsonNationalWildlife

Refuge.

[¶3] Hill purchased the lot undeveloped and began the process of

obtainingthenecessarypermitstobuildontheproperty.Becauseofthelot’s

proximitytothewetlands,Hill’sproposedstructurerequiredavariancefrom

theTown“[t]oreducethefrontsetbacktoLobsterLanefrom20feetto10feet”

and“[f]orafreshwaterwetlandsetbackreductionfrom38.5feettonolessthan

25feetforrearsetbackatthestructure’sclosestpoint.”2Thesizeofthelot,the

1 We take judicial notice of the lot’s size, its location, and the characteristics of the abutting

propertiesbywayofGoogleMaps.SeePahlsv.Thomas,718F.3d1210,1216n.1(10thCir.2013)(collectingcases).Duringoralargument,weaskedthepartiesiftherewereanyobjectionstoouruseofGoogleMapsforthispurpose,andneitherpartyexpressedanyopposition.

2Pursuanttochapter§145-33(B)(1)oftheTownCode,“[t]heminimumsetbackfromtheuplandedgeofawetlandshallbe75feet,whichmaybereducedtotheaverageofthesetbacksofstructures

3

stateandlocalregulations,andthedimensionspotentiallyavailableunderthe

variances limit the house that Hill intended to build to a footprint of just

680squarefeet.3ThesmallfootprintofHill’sproposedhomeresultedinaplan

tobuildthestructureuptothreestorieshigh,withthegroundleveltobeused

forparking.

[¶4] In July 2018, Hill sought and received from the Department of

EnvironmentalProtection (DEP)aNRPApermit tobuild a1274-square-foot

structureonthelot.TheDEP’sorderexpresslystated:“Thisapprovaldoesnot

constituteorsubstituteforanyotherrequiredstate,federalorlocalapprovals

nor does it verify compliance with any applicable shoreland zoning

ordinances.”Thus,theDEP’sapprovaldidnoteliminateHill’sneedtoobtaina

variance from the Town’s ZBA based on its independent fact-findings and

conclusions.

within200feetoftheproposedstructureonlotsabuttingthewetlandsbutshallnotbelessthan25feet.”SeeWells,Me.,Code§145-33(B)(1)(Apr.16,1999).TheZBA’sfindingsoffactindicatethatthesetbacksfromthefourabuttingpropertieswithin200feetofHill’sproposedhomeare37.33feet,43.26feet,13.48feet,and68feet.Theaverageofthosesetbacksis38.5feet,whichisthereforetheallowablesetbackforHill’sstructure.

3 Although the ZBA’s decision indicates that the total square footage of the homewould be680squarefeet,therecord,includingHill’spermitapplicationtotheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,makesclearthattheZBAwasreferringtothehouse’sfootprint.

4

[¶5]InFebruary2019,HillsubmittedhisvariancerequesttotheTown,

pursuanttochapter§145-67(A)(3)oftheTownCode,arguingthathewould

suffer undue hardship absent the variance. InMarch 2019, the ZBA held a

publichearingonHill’sapplication that includedsubmissionsand testimony

fromtheownersoftheabuttingproperties—includingtheintervenorinthis

case, Bradley Hastings. One abutting landowner testified that Hill’s lot is

“alwayswet”andthatthereis“plentyofwaterinthatlot.”4

[¶6] On April 1, 2019, the ZBA voted on its findings of fact and its

conclusions.TheZBA’sfindingsoffactprovided,inrelevantpart:

• Structures on all abutting properties were built prior toadoptionoftheCodebytheTownofWells.Thestructureononeabuttingpropertyhasbeenrenovatedsince2004.

• Four abutting properties within 200 feet of the proposedstructure on lots abutting the wetlands have setbacks of37.33feet,43.26feet,13.48feet,and68.00feetrespectivelyfromtheboundariesofthewetlands. Theallowedaveragesetbackfortheproposedstructureis38.49feet.Oneoftheabuttingpropertieshasasetbacksmallerthantherequested25feet,whichissmallerthantheaverage38.49feet. [Hill]stated that only a two square-foot area can be built uponwithinrequiredsetbacks.

• Asurveycompletedin2012determinedthattheaverageofthe setbacksof structureswithin200 feetof theproposed

4ThereportfromtheDEPsubmittedtotheZBAalsodetailed“waterflowingacrossthesouthern

cornerof[Hill’s]lottowardsthelowerelevationsonthewesterncornerofthelot,”thoughthisisnottheportionofthelotwhereHillproposedtoconstructthehome.

5

structure on lots abutting the wetlands was 33.49 feet,updatedto38.5feettoreflectrecentremovalofashed.

TheZBAfurtherconcluded:

• The sizeof thestructure(680square feet)5wouldmake itmuchsmallerthanallotherhomesintheneighborhood.

• The impacts on and by the wetlands are unique for thisproperty incomparison toabuttingpropertiesbecause theborder of the wetlands is inside the area of the lot andvirtuallyallofthewetlands[are]inthesetbacks.

Basedonthesefindings,theZBAdeterminedthatHillfailedtomeethis

burdenofshowingthatthevariancewouldnotaltertheessentialnature

oftheneighborhood.

[¶7] Following the ZBA’s denial of his variance application,Hill

appealedtotheSuperiorCourtpursuanttoM.R.Civ.P.80B.TheSuperior

Courtvacated theZBA’sdeterminationand remanded to theZBAwith

instructions to grant the variance, concluding that Hill had met his

burden of proof, compelling the ZBA to issue the variance. Hastings

timelyappealed.

5Seesupran.3.

6

II.DISCUSSION

A. BurdenofProofandStandardofReview

[¶8]OnanappealfromaSuperiorCourtorderwherethecourtactedin

itsintermediateappellatecapacitytohearanappealfromamunicipalzoning

board,we“reviewdirectlytheoperativedecisionofamunicipality.”Toomeyv.

TownofFryeIsland,2008ME44,¶11,943A.2d563.Indoingso,wewillnot

“substitute [our] judgment for thatof aboard.” Id. “[T]he partywishing to

overturn the municipal decision,” in this case Hill, bears the burden of

persuasiononappeal.Toomey,2008ME44,¶13,943A.2d563.“[T]heparty

bearingtheburdenofproofbeforetheBoard...mustshowonappealthatthe

evidence compelled the Board to grant him a variance.” Twigg v. Town of

Kennebunk,662A.2d914,916(Me.1995).

B. ApplicableLegalFramework

1. RelevantStatutes

[¶9]Amunicipalboardofappeals“maygrantavarianceonlywhenstrict

application of the ordinance to the petitioner and the petitioner’s property

wouldcauseunduehardship.”30-AM.R.S.§4353(4)(2021).Theterm“undue

hardship” requires the party seeking a variance to meet four conditions,

7

includingthat“[t]hegrantingofavariancewillnotaltertheessentialcharacter

ofthelocality.”Id.§4353(4)(C).6

[¶10] Other legislation, including multiple statutes protecting and

conserving sensitive environmental resources, governs the use of this

geographicareaandHill’spropertyspecifically.

[¶11] This property lies within the Drakes Island Game Sanctuary.

12M.R.S.§12706(E)(2021).Under12M.R.S.§12701(2021),thepermissible

usesofpropertywithinasanctuaryarelimitedandaresubjecttorulesadopted

by the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries andWildlife. For example, in the

absence of a Commissioner rule to the contrary, with some exceptions, no

trappingorhuntingofanywildanimalorwildbirdisallowedwithinthearea.

Id.§§12701,12707.

[¶12] The second piece of legislation that affects this property is the

NRPA,whichgovernslanduseonandnearwetlands.TheLegislaturehasfound

anddeclaredthat

theState’s...freshwaterwetlands,significantwildlifehabitat[and]coastal wetlands . . . are resources of state significance. Theseresources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics,unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental

6Becauseallfourconditionsmustbemet,weneednotaddresstheZBA’sadditionalfindingthat

Hillfailedtomeetanotherrequirement,namelythattheneedforthevarianceisnotself-createdbytheapplicantorapriorowner.30-AM.R.S.§4353(4)(D)(2021).

8

valueofpresentandfuturebenefittothecitizensoftheStateand...usesarecausingtherapiddegradationand,insomecases,thedestruction of these critical resources, producing significantadverseeconomicandenvironmentalimpactsandthreateningthehealth,safetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheState.

38M.R.S.§480-A.

[¶13] Another piece of legislation that affects this area and Hill’s

propertybymandatingshorelandzoningis38M.R.S.§435(2021),inwhichthe

Legislaturestated:

ToaidinthefulfillmentoftheState’sroleastrusteeofitswatersandtopromotepublichealth,safetyandthegeneralwelfare,itisdeclaredtobeinthepublicinterestthatshorelandareasbesubjectto zoning and land use controls. Shoreland areas include thoseareaswithin250 feetof thenormalhigh-water lineof anygreatpond,riverorsaltwaterbody,within250feetoftheuplandedgeofa coastal wetland, within 250 feet of the upland edge of afreshwaterwetlandexceptasotherwiseprovidedinsection438-A,subsection2,orwithin75feetofthehigh-waterlineofastream.Thepurposesofthesecontrolsaretofurtherthemaintenanceofsafe and healthful conditions; to prevent and control waterpollution;toprotectfishspawninggrounds,aquaticlife,birdandotherwildlifehabitat;toprotectbuildingsandlandsfromfloodingand accelerated erosion; to protect archaeological and historicresources;toprotectcommercialfishingandmaritimeindustries;to protect freshwater and coastal wetlands; to control buildingsites, placement of structures and land uses; to conserve shorecover,andvisualaswellas actualpointsofaccess to inlandandcoastalwaters;toconservenaturalbeautyandopenspace;andtoanticipateandrespondtotheimpactsofdevelopmentinshorelandareas.

9

[¶14] Under this statute, local ordinances must, among other things,

addressthecoastalmanagementpoliciessetforthin38M.R.S.§1801(2021).

38M.R.S.§438-A(2).Insection1801,theLegislaturefindsthat

theMainecoastisanassetofimmeasurablevaluetothepeopleofthe State and the nation, and there is a state interest in theconservation, beneficial use and effective management of thecoast’s resources; that development of the coastal area isincreasing rapidly and that this development poses a significantthreattotheresourcesofthecoast....

TheLegislaturefurtherdeclares“thatthewell-beingofthecitizensofthisState

dependsonstrikingacarefullyconsideredandwellreasonedbalanceamong

thecompetingusesoftheState’scoastalarea”andthatstateandlocalagencies

shouldconducttheiractivitiesaffectingthecoastalareaconsistentwithvarious

listed policies, including “[d]iscourag[ing] growth and new development in

coastalareaswhere,becauseofcoastalstorms,flooding,landslidesorsea-level

rise, it is hazardous to human health and safety” and “[p]rotect[ing] and

manag[ing]criticalhabitatandnaturalareasofstateandnationalsignificance

andmaintain[ing]thescenicbeautyandcharacterofthecoasteveninareas

wheredevelopmentoccurs.”Id.

[¶15]Finally,Hill’spropertyborderstheRachelCarsonNationalWildlife

Refuge,whichispartoftheNationalWildlifeRefugeSystem,anationalnetwork

oflandsandwatersdesignatedforconservationandrestorationoffish,wildlife,

10

andplantresourcesandtheirhabitats.See16U.S.C.S.§668dd(LEXISthrough

Pub.L.No.116-344).

[¶16] None of these environmental protection statutes precluded the

ZBAfromgrantingthevariancesrequestedbyHill. See38M.R.S.§439-A(4);

Petersonv.TownofRangeley,1998ME192,¶¶13-16,715A.2d930.Theydo,

however, indicate that this locality isofparticularenvironmentalsensitivity,

and they identify public health and welfare interests relevant to assessing

development in the area, includinghabitatprotection, avoiding floodingand

wetlanddegradation,andpreservingopenspaceandnaturalbeauty.

2. RelevantOrdinances

[¶17] ThepropertyHill seeks todevelop lieswithin theResidentialD

District,and,consistentwith38M.R.S.§1801, isalsosubject toaShoreland

OverlayDistrict.

[¶18]Chapter145-23,definingtheResidentialDDistrict,provides:

A. Purpose.ThepurposeoftheResidentialDDistrictistoretainthefamilyresortcharacterofDrakesIslandbyensuringthatfuturedevelopmentissimilartotheexistingdevelopmentinstyle and scale. Nonresidential uses should be limited tononcommercialrecreationalusesandpublicuses.

UsespermittedintheDistrictarelimitedtoagriculture,one-familydwellings,

keepingpoultry,andrecreation.Wells,Me.,Code§145-23(B)(June9,2015).

11

Dwellingsarelimitedtoaheightofthirtyfeetandthreestoriesandmustbeset

back twenty feet from any lot line abutting any street right of way. Id.

§§145-23(F)(5),(G)(2).

[¶19] Chapter 145-33, defining the Shoreland Overlay District,7

provides:

A. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to prevent andcontrolwater pollution; to protect fish spawning grounds,aquatic life and bird and otherwildlife habitat; to protectbuildingsandlandsfromfloodingandacceleratederosion;toprotect commercial fishing and maritime industries; toprotectfreshwaterandcoastalwetlands;toconserveshorecover;andtopreserveaccesstoinlandandcoastalwaters.

The setbacks required include seventy-five feet from the upland edge of a

wetland,“whichmaybereducedbytheaverageofthesetbacksofstructures

within200feetoftheproposedstructureonlotsabuttingthewetlandsbutshall

notbelessthan25feet.”Id.§145-33(B)(1).

7“Overlayzoningisaflexiblezoningtechniquethatallowsamunicipalitytolimitdevelopmentin

certainenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Anoverlayzoneisamappedoverlaydistrictsuperimposedon one ormore established zoningdistricts. Environmental overlay district boundariesmay bedrawntofollowtheboundariesofanaturalresource,suchasawatershedorfloodplain.Anoverlayzone supplements the underlying zoning standards with additional requirements that can bedesignedtoprotectthenaturalfeaturesinanimportantenvironmentalarea. Aparcelwithintheoverlayzoneisregulatedsimultaneouslybytwosetsofzoningregulations:theunderlyingzoningdistrictprovisionsandtheoverlayzoningrequirements.Auniquenaturaloraestheticresourcearea,such as a pine barren, wetland resource area, watershed, or tidal basin, can be identified andprotectedinthisway.”JohnR.Nolon,InPraiseofParochialism:TheAdventofLocalEnvironmentalLaw,26Harv.Envtl.L.Rev365,391(2002)(footnoteomitted).

12

[¶20]Insum,thepurposesoftheseordinanceprovisionsechothoseof

the relevant statutes, such as protecting natural resources and avoiding

flooding andwetland degradation,with large setbacks fromwetlands and a

focusonresidentialandrecreationaluses.8

3. TheNatureofthe“EssentialCharacteristics”Requirement

a. Themeaningof“EssentialCharacteristicsoftheLocality”isinformed by its context as a variance criterion and thepurposesandlimitationsimposeduponuses,structures,anddimensionswithinthedistrict.

[¶21]Wehavenotedthatwhenanordinancebroadlyprovidesthatuses

are permitted in a district as long as they do not alter the essential

characteristics of the locality, the breadth of that language results in an

excessive delegation of authority to the administrative body to determine

whethertopermittheuse.Copev.TownofBrunswick,464A.2d223,226-27

8 Another relevant ordinance provisionwould ordinarily be the provision setting forth local

variancecriteria.AnerroneoussectionoftheWellsOrdinancewasincludedintheappendix.Wecannottakejudicialnoticeofordinances.Millsv.TownofEliot,2008ME134,¶23,955A.2d258.Uponnotificationofthisomission,thepartiesconfirmedthatthewrongsectionhadbeenincludedintheappendixbutdidnotseektomodifytheappendixorotherwiseprovideacertifiedcopyoftheapplicablesection.

It appears that other ordinance provisions might also require additional fact-finding beforegrantingavariancefromsetbacksfromwetlands. ButtheZBAdidnotmentionthesecriteria,theappellantdidnotarguethatthesecriteriaappliedbeforetheZBA,and,again,wecannottakejudicialnoticeofanyordinanceprovisionoutsideanadministrativerecordorappendix.Wethereforefocuson the variance criteria provided by statute,which, as identified by the ZBA in its decision, areidenticaltotheapplicablecriteriaappliedbytheZBA,includingtherequirementthatthevariancenot alter the essential characteristics of the locality. See Wells, Me., Code § 145-67(A)(3)(Nov.2,1993).

13

(Me.1983). Thisdelegationproblemdoesnot arise in thevariancecontext,

however,becausethiscriterion,alongwiththeotherstatutoryconditionsfor

grantingavariance,constitutelimitationsontheZBA’sdiscretion.YourHome,

Inc.v.TownofWindham,528A.2d468,472(Me.1987).Inotherwords,inthe

contextofavariance,amunicipalityactingasa legislaturehasidentifiedthe

permitted uses, and the essential characteristics criterion is limited by the

ordinance’sprovisionsregardingthepermittedusesandthepurposesofthe

district.Seeid.(“[V]ariancesareuseswhicharegenerallyinappropriateforthe

zoneinwhichtheyarelocated.”).

[¶22] Additionally, “[v]ariances are meant to encompass those[]

situations . . . where . . . the application of the ordinance bears so little

relationshiptothepurposesofzoningthat,astothatproperty,theregulation

is,ineffect,confiscatoryorarbitrary.”SawyerEnv’tlRecoveryFacilities,Inc.v.

TownofHampden,2000ME179,¶18,760A.2d257(quotationmarksomitted).

Thediscretionof aboard in theapplicationof the“essentialcharacteristics”

variance criterion is thus limited not only by the specific provisions in an

ordinance defining the characteristics of a district, but, also, by the guiding

perspectivethatavarianceshouldnotbegrantedunlessthepartyseekingthe

variance can prove that there is something unique about his property that

14

makesadherencetotheuses,structures,anddimensionspermittedwithinthe

districtinconsistentwiththepurposesofthezoningforthatdistrict.SeeRadin

v.Crowley,516A.2d962,964(Me.1986)(“Theproperinquiry[indetermining

whether tograntavariance] iswhetherapplicationof thesideyardsetback

requirementtoRadin’slotarbitrarilydeprivesherofabeneficialuseofherland

withoutmateriallyadvancinganyofthepolicepowerpurposesunderlyingand

justifyingenactmentoftherequirement.”).

b. Thesizeofthelocalityiscontextdependentandnotlimitedtodevelopedusesandvalues.

[¶23]Theidentificationofthelocality,orneighborhood,forthepurpose

ofdeterminingcompatibilityofausewiththearea’sessentialcharacteristicsis

necessarily fact-sensitive and dependent upon the nature of the geographic

area the variance may impact. That said, the districts, as legislatively

established by the municipality, provide strong guidance in identifying the

localityorneighborhood. Here, for example, chapter§145-23, defining the

ResidentialDDistrict,referencesthepurposeofthisDistrictasretainingthe

characterof“DrakesIsland.”Itfollowsthattheimpactofanyvariancewithin

thisareaisarelevantconsideration.SeeJanssenv.HollandCharterTwp.Zoning

Bd.ofAppeals,651N.W.2d464,468(Mich.Ct.App.2002)(“Inconsideringthe

essentialcharacterofthislocality,onecannot,andshouldnot,justlookatthe

15

immediateneighboringproperties.Thecharacterofthelocalityisdefinedin

broaderstrokesthansuchamyopicviewpointwouldprovide.”).

[¶24] It also follows that the locality here includes the abutting

undeveloped Refuge and wetlands. See Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham,

754N.E.2d101,110-11(Mass.App.Ct.2001)(notingthat“neighborhood”isan

elastic term depending upon facts and circumstances, and that it was

appropriate for zoning purposes to include undeveloped beaches, coastal

banks,marshes,andwetlandsaspartoftheneighborhoodforthepurposesof

definingcharacter).

[¶25]Impactismeasurednotonlyineconomicterms,butalsointerms

oftheeffectonenvironmentalvalues.9Whiletheadverseimpactofavariance

onthemarketvalueofsurroundingdevelopedpropertymightberelevantin

assessing the effect on essential characteristics of a locality, the purpose of

zoningisbroader,relatingtothepublicinterestandwelfare.10Theimportance

9Inclusionofsuchvaluesinvarianceconsiderationsisreflectedin30-AM.R.S.§4353(4-B)and

(4-C),which allowamunicipality to enactanordinance relaxing the statutoryvariance criterionrequiring that the property be incapable of producing a reasonable return under certaincircumstances, see infra n.10, but limiting that relaxation with respect to wetland setbacks.Section4-C(E) also specifically recites that theremust be no unreasonable adverse effect on thenaturalenvironment.SeeRowev.CityofS.Portland,1999ME81,¶¶9-10,730A.2d673.

10TheessentialcharacteristicsprongwasfirstidentifiedinOttov.Steinhilber,24N.E.2d851,853(N.Y.1939). SeeLovelyv.ZoningBd.ofAppeals,259A.2d666,669(Me.1969). Insupportof itsdevelopmentof the essential characteristicsprong, theSteinhilbercourt citedEdwardM.Bassettetal.,ModelLawsforPlanningCities,Counties,andStates:IncludingZoning,SubdivisionRegulation,andProtectionofOfficialMapat12(1935),whichstated: “Thepowerofvariance fallswithin the

16

ofenvironmentalimpactisparticularlystrongwithrespecttopropertieslying

within an overlay district, which is designed, as noted supra, to protect

environmentallysensitiveareas.SeegenerallyRobertJ.Blackwell,Comment,

Overlay Zoning, Performance Standards, and Environmental Protection After

Nollan,16B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.615(1989).

c. Thevariancemustbecompatiblewiththedistrictaszoned,notjustsurroundingnonconformingusesanddimensions.

[¶26]Finally,keyindeterminingtheessentialcharacteristicsofalocality

aretheuses,structures,anddimensionsofsetbacksandotherfeaturesalready

existinginthatarea.Here,therelevantordinanceexpresslyprovidesthatnew

developmentshouldbesimilarto“existing”development,whichwouldinclude

nonconforming structures. That said, the analysis is not constrained to

considering only grandfathered uses and structures—otherwise, every

applicant for a variance could obtain the equivalent of grandfathered status

withouthavingtobeconsistentwiththemunicipality’szoningforthearea.

well-recognizedgeneralclassofrelaxationsormitigationsofthestrictnessofgeneralrulesinwhichbroad discretion is so commonly, as in this case, granted the administrator by relating it toconsiderationsofthepublicinterest,publicsafetyandwelfare,andsubstantialjustice.”SeeZoningand LandUse Controls, Ch. 9, Introduction, § 53A.01 (LexisNexisMatthewBender) (stating thatBassett“isoftenviewedasthefatheroftheconcept[ofzoning]inthiscountry”). Forahistoricaloverviewastohowenvironmentalconcernshavealwaysbeencomponentsofandjustificationsforzoning,seeEarlFinbarMurphy,EuclidandtheEnvironment,containedinZoningandtheAmericanDream:PromisesStilltoKeep(CharlesM.Haar&JeroldS.Kaydeneds.,1989)at154,168-74.

17

[¶27]InRadin,516A.2dat964,forexample,thepartyseekingavariance

arguedthatshewasentitledtoasetbackvariancebecausethegoalofzoning

was uniformity and her use would be consistent with the present

nonconforming uses in the immediate area. We stated that this argument

“misconstrue[d]boththenatureoftheuniformityimposedbyzoningandthe

methodbywhichuniformityisattained.”Id. Therelevantuniformityisthat

defined in the zoning ordinance; otherwise, “no municipality could ever

effectively impose restrictions on areas with a large number of extant

nonconforming uses, for exceptions and variances would of necessity be

grantedalmostasamatterofcourse.”Id.;seealsoSurfriderFound.v.ZoningBd.

ofAppeals,358P.3d664,686-89(Haw.2015)(reversingthegrantofavariance

from the setback requirement on essential characteristics grounds and

rejecting the evidence of similar nonconformity in the area as competent

evidencebecausethepresenceofnonconformingusesandstructuresshould

notserveasthebasisforfurthernonconformance).

[¶28]Agoalofzoningistoeliminate,notperpetuate,nonconformance.

Lovely,259A.2dat669-70;seealsoO’Toolev.CityofPortland,2004ME130,

¶15,865A.2d555(statingthatvariancedecisionsshouldnotbedivorcedfrom

“acommunity’scontemporaryplanningobjectives”). Hence,whilewewould

18

not go so far as the Hawaii Supreme Court in concluding that surrounding

nonconforming uses are irrelevant to the determination of the essential

characteristics of a locality, nonconforming uses are not determinative and

theirsignificanceisdiscountediftheyareinconsistentwiththepurposesofthe

existingzoningscheme.

C. ApplicationoftheLawtoHill’sRequestforVariances

[¶29] ItwasHill’s burden to prove that the variancewould result in

developmentcompatiblewiththelocality.Heshowedonlythattheimmediate

abutters’houseswerenonconforming,andtherecordlacksevidencethathis

housewould be similar in size and height to others. There are indications,

includingthesatellitephotosfromGoogleMaps,that itwouldnot. Buteven

withoutreferencetothosephotographs,giventhattheburdenlaywithHill,it

was within the discretion of the ZBA, which had knowledge of the area, to

concludethathefailedtomeethisburdenbasedontheevidencethathedid

provide, or the lack thereof. See Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town of Gray,

631A.2d 55, 57 (Me. 1993) (holding that local boardmembersmay rely on

their personal knowledge of the area at issue); Driscoll, 441 A.2d at 1029

19

(sustainingalocalzoningboard’srulingonessentialcharacteristicsgiventhe

boardmembers’familiaritywiththeneighborhood).11

[¶30]Therecordastotheenvironmentalimpactofthevariancesalso

does not compel the conclusion that the environmental purposes of the

Shoreland Overlay District would be met by allowing a variance from the

wetlandsetback.SeeRadin,516A.2dat964(affirmingthedenialofavariance

because the applicant did not demonstrate that the purposes of the setback

requirementwerenotadvancedbytheirapplicationtoherlot).

[¶31] Insupportofhisapplication,HillsubmittedacopyoftheDEP’s

approvaloftherequestedsetbackundertheNRPA.Asthatapprovalexpressly

provides, however, that approvaldid not verify compliancewith theTown’s

shorelandzoningordinances,andtheZBAwasfreetodeterminethatalarger

setbackwasrequired,supportedbyrecordevidenceregardingneighborhood

floodingissues.

[¶32]Setbackspreventovercrowdingonsubstandardlotsandmaintain

vistas.GiventhelanguageintheOrdinanceestablishingallowedsetbacksby

11Thecharacterizationofusesisamixedquestionoflawandfact,subjecttodeferenceonappeal.

Jordanv.CityofEllsworth,2003ME82,¶9,828A.2d768(“[W]ereviewtheinterpretationoftheordinancedenovo,butweafford theZBA’sultimatecharacterizationof thestructuresubstantialdeference.”).

20

averagingexistingsetbacks,seesupran.2,thegrantofavarianceherewould

further erode the setback required for any furtherdevelopment in the area.

Thislotsitsontheedgeofawildliferefuge,withwetlandsintrudingintoagood

portionof the lot. TheZBAwasnotcompelled todetermine thatno further

reduction in setback requirements was warranted in order to maintain the

environmentallysensitivevaluesofthelocality.12

Theentryis:

The judgmentof theSuperiorCourt is vacated.Remandedforentryofajudgmentaffirmingthedecisionof the TownofWells ZoningBoardofAppeals.

12 Asnoted inSawyerEnv’tlRecoveryFacilities, Inc.v. TownofHampden,2000ME179,¶18,

760A.2d257,aprimaryfunctionofvariances,asidefromavoidingarbitrarylimitsonpropertyuseunwarrantedbythezoningscheme,istoavoidconfiscation.Seealso2Anderson’sAmericanLawofZoning§13:1(PatriciaE.Salkined.,5thed.2021)(statingthatvariancesare“escapehatches”).Oneofthestatutorycriteriaforgrantingavarianceisthatthepartyseekingthevariancemustprovethatthe property “cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted.” 30-A M.R.S.§4353(4)(A).WetakenopositionastowhetherHill’sinabilitytobuildtheresidenceheseekstobuildabsentavarianceprovidesaviablegroundforaregulatorytakingclaimbutnotethattheZBA’sfinding that this variance criterion was met—a finding that neither the Town nor Hastingsappealed—wasbasedonanincorrectlegalconclusionthatthecriterionismetwheneverapropertyownercannotbuildaresidenceabsentthevariance.SeeToomeyv.TownofFryeIsland,2008ME44,¶¶17-18,943A.2d563.

21

Keith P. Richard, Esq. (orally), Libby O’Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC,Kennebunk,forappellantBradleyHastingsAlanE.Shepard,Esq.(orally),Shepard&Read,Kennebunk,forappelleeKevinJ.HillYorkCountySuperiorCourtdocketnumberAP-2019-18FORCLERKREFERENCEONLY