Development Projects and the Limits of Moratoria

I am always struck at how vigorously some property owners oppose development projects, despite their having previously, and successfully, pursued identical projects. Do they not remember that they did the exact same thing? Is there some definition of fairness I am not aware of? Whatever the cause, it can be exasperating for the developer and detrimental to sound zoning and planning.

A recent case in my small town has really shined a light on just how absurd this can all be.

A landowner, in compliance with state law and as is her right, created a number of lots under the so-called 2 in 5 rule. Subject to a number of exemptions and exclusions, the general rule is that a landowner can create 2 lots in any 5-year period without needing municipal (i.e., planning board) approval. 30-A MRSA section 4401(4):

4. Subdivision. "Subdivision" means the division of a tract or parcel of land into 3 or more lots within any 5-year period that begins on or after September 23, 1971. This definition applies whether the division is accomplished by sale, lease, development, buildings or otherwise. The term "subdivision" also includes the division of a new structure or structures on a tract or parcel of land into 3 or more dwelling units within a 5-year period, the construction or placement of 3 or more dwelling units on a single tract or parcel of land and the division of an existing structure or structures previously used for commercial or industrial use into 3 or more dwelling units within a 5-year period.

For the landowner the benefits of this approach are numerous, but for the most part all revolve around not having to build infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, electric utilities, water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater infrastructure, as well as not having to set aside or otherwise provide open or common space. For Maine’s relatively “cash poor, land rich” population, the 2 in 5 rule has been a way to monetize their land over time without a lot of upfront development costs or risks.

But back to my town where the land adjacent to this landowner’s 2 in 5 development was bought by a developer “from away,” who applied to the planning board for a residential subdivision approval. Almost a year later, the project is still languishing in front of planning board. The 2 in 5 landowner is now on the planning board and is circulating a citizens petition to enact a 24-month moratorium on any subdivision needing planning board approval. Putting aside the potential conflict of interest issues at play here, a 24-month moratorium is laughably illegal.

State law limits moratoria to a definite term of not more than 180 days. In certain circumstances, a moratoria may be extended for an additional term of not more than 180 days. Moratoria are not intended to simply stop development, but are instead intended to provide a municipality breathing room to thoughtfully look at issues and impacts around development and make evidenced-based policies to guide development.

In order to adopt a moratorium, the municipality must first have evidence that additional development is likely to overburden existing facilities or that there is a shortage of such facilities. What form this evidence takes is subject to some debate, ranging from mere statements from public facilities managers (e.g., school district, water district, sewer district, public works, and so on) to glossy consultant’s reports concluding that existing public facilities are or may be insufficient to adequately address additional development.

The second criteria is that the municipality’s comprehensive plan or ordinances are inadequate to protect resources from serious harm. I find this criteria sort of odd in that municipalities, if they have a zoning ordinance, must enact a zoning ordinance that is in compliance with a comprehensive plan, that, as its principal function is supposed to protect resources from serious harm and guide development in a responsibly and thoughtful way. It might be said that a moratorium allows a municipality to correct an otherwise deficient comprehensive plan.

Anytime a municipality considers a moratorium, it should do so carefully and thoughtfully.

Law Court Finds FOAA Complaint Properly Dismissed

Maine’s Law Court recently issued a brief decision reminding Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) practitioners that FOAA complaints are subject to dismissal, like any other complaint, where they fail to allege facts that would entitle a plaintiff to relief under the statute. 

The facts in the case, Dubois v. Town of Arundel, involved a denial by the Town of Arundel’s Planning Board of an application to renew a conditional use permit submitted by an agricultural composting facility. The Planning Board denied the application during a public hearing, which was not attended by any representative from the composting facility, including the two plaintiffs in the case. Following the Planning Board’s denial, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that a memorandum drafted by the Town Planner and distributed to the Planning Board members led to an illegal executive session. The Town of Arundel moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief, which the trial court granted and the plaintiffs then appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that a complaint brought under the FOAA is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. However, the Law Court rejected this argument and found no merit for the proposition that a motion to dismiss is barred in the context of a FOAA complaint. 

Turning to the substance, the Law Court examined the complaint to determine whether it alleged facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. Here, the Law Court explained that the complaint failed to allege that any action was actually taken during an executive session that would violate the FOAA. On the contrary, the complaint merely alleged that a memo from the Town Planner led to an executive session, and that the Planning Board then held a public hearing at which the composting facility’s application was denied. Consequently, because the complaint failed to allege that any specific action was taken during an executive session, the Law Court found that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the FOAA that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief.

Maine Court Reiterates That Private Persons Do Not Have Standing to Enforce Land Use Ordinances

The Maine Superior Court recently issued a decision reiterating that only municipalities have the authority to enforce land use regulations. The decision is a reminder that private persons are not entitled to sue for enforcement of a land use ordinance and that, if they do, any such action may be dismissed.

At issue in Emanuel v. Town of Bristol was the use of a refrigerated trailer at a lobster wharf, which several nearby residents objected to because the trailer was loud and ran at unpredictable intervals. After the wharf owner did not respond to the residents’ concerns, the residents contacted the town with their objections, claiming that the trailer was being used without prior review or approval by the Town’s planning board or code enforcement officer (CEO). The residents requested that the Town require the wharf to obtain a planning board permit. In response, the Town’s CEO explained the trailer was not a “structure” requiring a permit and that, because there was no consequent violation of the shoreland zoning ordinance (SZO), the Town would not issue a notice of violation. The residents appealed the Town’s decision to the Superior Court.

On appeal, the Superior Court pointed to two previous decisions from Maine’s Law Court, both of which found that private persons did not have standing to initiate enforcement proceedings against their neighbors. Based on these decisions, as well as the language of the SZO, the Superior Court found that it is the duty of the CEO, not private persons, to enforce the SZO and to investigate complaints of alleged violations. And, if the CEO’s actions do not result in an abatement of the violation, then it is the municipal officers of the Town who have the authority to initiate legal action – not private persons.