# Leonard v. Town of Kittery

> Superior Court of Maine · January 23, 2006

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808733

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** January 23, 2006
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Paul A. Fritzsche
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808733

## Opinion text

S T M E OF PIAING SUPERlOR COURT
ClVlL ACTION
YOIililoat. F--iissbated purpose for doing so is to

increase the safety at his float by having anot-her docking clption c-le-pending011 currents

and winds. The minutes from the meetings ilidical-e that the I1.1i~1l-ellei1sive
1'1a11; and 3)

5 1002.
inconsistent 147itl1 tl.ie requirements of 38 F>,/I.R.S.A.

DISCUSSION
-
i'l2e Superior Cor~rtreviews the iindings of the KiLtery Port ~ u t h o r i t y"for an

abuse of discretion, error of iavv, 01- finiiilij;~1.111~~1l~l)ol-ted
by subst-al~tiaievidence i i the
~

i'eCOi-d. I/ i i I:~ijiiioiiii', 20:F1 h4 ll 61, l'7, 769 A.26 2465, 869. AS Ll~epsi-5-
1 l.l~ei.izG. 7 ' ~ ~ i i of
11

.,that
-,to overturn thc KPAfs decision, P i t I-. I,e(~:na;-d!]as diz b1.1rden of cstablisliing
secking

E1i:nick zl. T07071 of A/lcchi~~lir
the evidence coinpels a contrary concl~l:r;io~i. Fnlls, 673 A.2d

1348, I349 (Me. 1996).

Mr. Leonard fjrst contends that tlic Ititknds tl?at there is no evidencc jn the

wind blowii~gwith ebb tide would
record to sr~pporta finding that a norlrli~17r~l-erly

affect tlie safety of the proposed finger fli-rat.' Mr. T,eona~-dfurther argues that the

ordinance does not contain provisions, r ~ ~ l e(31-
s , regulations that allow the KPA to deny
r
permits solely for safety concerns. 1hus, Ix2ca~1se
7

tlie safety standards LI tilized were not

articulated, the II. 1 ,:::;!I:,! P.'! :-, ! , C ? S I ~ Z:I~rl;i.Ic;S
~ t ! i>!~
'i'','!.!'.! ~FC~SIGII!;

violated tlie Kittery C ' n r n l ~ r e l i e i i sI1.I.;1!i ;\nd I17,. ic:i t t-cry I',a~irlilsci ijevelopmen t (.'ode,

which encourag-e building more ~lvliarlagcin Back Cliai~nelbecarise it is considered

"safe."

dial- the 2004 c!:.;:l~l \.tras !~z:;:,d :-int l ~ csafety of thct fi 1igc.r float
'l'he 'l'own cc~~~tei?ds

1
'l'he I i / i c . I t : i . ~ c - ~ a 11c.l C(~ILC~LLC.[VJ
7 7

that the propc~salcreated unacceptable safcky co1iceriis. A revi c ~ oi
v tlie record docs not

corn pel a con traqr I-esult.
The KPA's findings of fact are niol-e p r ~ b l ~ n i a t i cA. local board must do more

than merely stale 11 c o n c l ~ ~ s l oin1 ~ni; L I S sl,jle
~ 1110 bas~c
1'1cls upon ~vli~cli
its conclusions

are based. flere, the Iii1 acts 11po1i~vliic11 ~ t conclusion
s I S based:

A. This area is considered Urlsafe lor boals trying to doclc due to strong NW'ly
winds and strong currents.

R. D ~ i eto the congested arecl 111~' tloat :vould create an unsafe navigalional
sys Lein .

D. Sect. VIIT (Port Authfirity K11l~:s)
\/t'!ic:-r~the requirements of these klles and
liegulabons are in conflict ~ v i ~other
li laws or rules, the more restrictive, or
that imposing the higher standc)rd,shall govern

E. Testimony given by abutler 1' s 1-0 ~ l ~ i n g e r oarea
~ r s and confir~nedby 1-Iarbor
Master.

F. Float system approved origi~i~illy
as a wallcway to p u t float oul to deeper
water for fisliing bmt.

G. Comprehensive f-larhor Plan rc~fcrenccivas mostly from the old Plan of 1989.

Of these, "C", "DUand "G" are es\c.ntially conc~lusory, C states: "Testimony
/I 'I/

and how does it bear on the pending
from board members in 2001." What testi~nor~y,

application? "D" refers to Sect. V111, POI-L
/ \ t i llioi-i~y It111c.s req~liringthat when 111ese

rules conflict witli ot-her 1 and use rc.8111 , I tions, 111cI-riost resb-iclive apply. Are thcre

~ r ( ~ "C;" refer? to the lsstte ol
conflicting rtrlcs in 1111s CL?SC; 11~1iicli~ I I ~ ~( Y\ ~ (al)l?li(ld?

Was this accurat-e, if so, were thcre any n~nict.iaIdif'terencc:; witli tlie current p~aii? li

tllese were tlw only tinclings made by 1110 l<l'r\, I \,vo~~ltl
rrmai~dthe C ~ S Cto [lie T<PA.
-1-lowevcr,
-
findings "A", "B","I:"
;Irlcl "I;" arc nu 111tlmlljr adecluate to perm lt

judicial rcvic~v. finclings relaling i < j ancl /:~oLznli.all~l
~\/e~.-i:ijl~geslion danget-c;t~s

hazards to navigation arc. supported by the. tcstilnony of a n nl)ulter, the 1-'larbor Master
and the genernl knowledge of the h o a t ~ in~enlbel-s.It 1s not for the reviewing court to

second-guess these judgmen 1s.

I realize that local boards rely on vol~~nlccl-s
1vho dedic'lte long hours to the often

thankless task of applying complicated ordinances in disputed cases. However, it is

now clear that our Supreme Court wrll ~ n s l s to n more thorougi~f~nciingsof fact at the

local administralive level. ideally, ml~~iicipalities
wor~lcimake iegai cormsel available to

volilliteei. boards to assist thein i i ~this i < i ~ l < l.i i tlie I ~ i ri~i-1,
~ g t!ii~~ f i i i l i likely
l be r i a - e

efficient and less expensive for all involvc~d. T!ot~,iever,in the absence of this kind of

assistance, the boards themselves 1n1~ s 1,ll-ivc
l to provide delailed and comprehensive

findings of fact or face thc prospect of €1-c(lucntremands.

The entry will be as follows:

Plaintiffs' Rule 80B appedl is Den~odancl the decision of thc T<itfcry Port
Autl~orityis Affirmed.

Dated: Januaryrq, 2006

G. ~ r d i u Brennan
r
PLAINTIFF:
Trrstice, Srlperior Court
Gene L i b b y , E s q .
VERRILL AND DANA
PO B o x 1 4 7
K e n n e b u n k Me 0 4 0 4 3

DEFENDANTS:
Duncan M c E a c h e r n , Esq.
MCEACHERN AND THORNHILL
PO B o x 3 6 0
K i t t e r y Me 03904

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10808733. Public record. Not legal advice.