The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-04-081
AP-06-014
DANA J. WILLIS, Trustee of
DONALD L. GARBRECHI
LAW LIBRARY
. '
.yo(? 3 l y - ~
the ~ a n J.a Willis Trust,
MAY 1 6
Plaintiff
ORDERS AND DECISION
TOWN OF YORK,
Defendant
In AP-04-081 Dana Willis, as trustee of the Dana J. Willis Trust, has challenged a
decision of the Town of York Harbor Board which denied his request for approval to
construct a dock, ramp and float on property owned by the Trust at 121 Western Point
Road on the York River in York. In AP-06-14 he has appealed in the same capacity from
a decision of the York Board of Appeals which denied the appeal from a denial of a
building permit by the York Code Enforcement Officer. These appeals have been
consolidated, briefed and argued.
These appeals demonstrate the time consuming costly labyrinthine process of
evaluating whether the pier, ramp and float should be built. Mr. Willis has already
received a required federal permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
the required state permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. He
has yet to apply to the York Selectmen for a permit under the Wharves and Fish Weirs
statute, 38 M.R.S.A. 51022 and Cohen v. Board of Selectmen of the Town of Kennebunk, 376
A.2d 853 (Me. 1977). These appeals deal with which York town official or board has the
jurisdiction and duty to act upon requests for building permits for docks or piers in the
tidal rivers and harbors in York. The appeals also examine whether the boards and
town officials acted properly in their attempts to properly interpret and apply the not
always clear ordinances.
The first appeal, which has a lengthy history, ultimately involves a decision by
the York Harbor Board, affirming a decision by the York Harbor Master, to deny the
request based on the belief that the proposed structures would essentially unreasonably
interfere with navigation. Regardless of whether that decision was based on substantial
evidence neither the Harbor Board nor the Harbor Master had the authority to make
such determinations in the context of a request to build a new pier. Local decisions,
separate from the federal and state requirements, rest with the Code Enforcement
Officer and Selectmen.
A review of the Harbor Ordinance for the Town of York demonstrates that there
is no grant of authority, 38 M.R.S.A. 52, to the Harbor Board or Harbor Master to
review, grant or deny permit application for the construction of new piers. In a section
entitled Public Floats, Piers, Wharves and Landings there is no grant of authority to
regulate new construction. Likewise there is nothing in the provisions regarding
anchorage or berths that is relevant to the facts of this case.
There is one section entitled "Construction" that might give the Harbor Master
and Harbor Board authority here. That section states "It shall be unlawful to make new
construction of, or additions, alterations or changes to, existing structures w i h n the
jurisdictional limits of this ordinance, without prior review by the Harbor Board to
assure that the change will not create a hazard to navigation. This provision shall not
prohibit normal repairs and maintenance to existing structures. For purposes of this
provision, "existing structures" shall include, but not be limited to, any float, moored
float, pier, wharf or landing." While this language is not entirely clear the wording and
punctuation indicate that the Harbor Board has authority over new construction of (a
rebuilding), additions to, alterations to or changes to existing piers or wharves that go
beyond normal repairs and maintenance. The Board, and the Harbor Master, are not
granted authority over the permitting of entirely new structures. Those decisions are
made by federal and state officials plus the town selectmen, 38 M.R.S.A. 91022 and the
code enforcement officer. Section 8.3.6.7 of the York Zoning Ordinance. Ample review,
including ample local review, exists.
The second appeal also has a complex history. In the end the Board of Appeals
denied the administrative appeal from a denial by the Code Enforcement Officer of a
request for a building permit because the Trust had failed to demonstrate sufficient
right, title and interest in the property where the pier would be built.
The "right, title and interest" requirement is the same as administrative standing,
See Murray v. Inhabitants of the Town of Lincolnville, 462 A.2d 40, 42 (Me. 1983) which
requires the applicant for a permit to use properties to have "'the kind of relationship to
the site'. .. that gives h m a legally cognizable expectation of having the power to use
that site in the ways that would be authorized by the permit or license he seeks."
In h s case the Trust has a warranty deed to the property and presented other
evidence in support of its claimed title. It is not for the Code Enforcement Officer or the
Board of Appeals to give a title opinion or examine whether there are potential
problems with the language in the deed or with complex title questions regarding land
near, at or below the water's edge. The deeds and other evidence that was presented
was sufficient. Possible title issues should not have been used as a reason to deny the
requested building permit. Also see Rockland Plaza Realty Corp. v. Laverdiere's
Enterprises, 531 A.2d 1272, 1273-4 (Me. 1987), which stated "...the Planning Commission
was not the proper forum to determine existing property rights in the narrow strip of
land .. .." Also see Southridge Coy. v. Board of Environmental Protection, 655 A.2d 345, 348
(Me. 1995).
The entries are:
The decision of the York Harbor Board in AP-04-81 is reversed.
The decision of the York Board of Appeals in AP-06-14 is reversed.
Remanded to the Board of Appeals for further remand to the Code
Enforcement Officer for issuance of a building permit.
a*
Dated: September ,2006
Paul A. Fritzsche 1
Justice, Superior Court
PLAINTIFF :
DAVID A SOLE ESQ
GREGORY CUNNINGHAM ESQ
BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON
PO BOX 9 7 2 9
PORTLAND ME 04104-5029
DAVID J BALLOU ESQ
BALLOU & BEDELL
PO BOX 2000
YORK ME 0 3 9 0 9
DEFENDANT :
SUSAN B DRISCOLL ESQ
BERGEN & PARKINSON
6 2 PORTLAND RD
KENNEBUNK ME 04043-6658