CHARLES REMMEL et al.
CITY OF PORTLAND et al
Argued: September 9, 2014.
Judgment vacated. Remanded with direction to affirm the decision of the City Council.
On the briefs: Danielle P. West-Chuhta, Esq., and Patricia A. McAllister, Esq., City of Portland, Portland, for appellant City of Portland.
Mary E. Costigan, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellant 32 Thomas Street, LLC.
Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esq., Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP, Portland, for appellees Charles Remmel, et al.
Orlando E. Delogu, Esq., appellee, Pro se.
At oral argument: Patricia McAllister, Esq., for appellant City of Portland.
Bruce McGlauflin, Esq., for appellees Charles Remmel et al.
Orlando Delogu, Esq., Pro se, appellee.
Panel: ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
[¶1] The City of Portland and 32 Thomas Street, LLC, appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Wheeler, J.) in favor of Charles and Kathy Remmel and other residents of Portland's West End. In its judgment, the court concluded that the Portland City Council's approval of a conditional zoning agreement (CZA) did not comply with the City's comprehensive plan and state statutes limiting conditional rezoning. See 30-A M.R.S. § 4352(2), (8) (2013).
[¶2] The City and 32 Thomas Street argue that the court failed to give proper deference to the CZA as a legislative act of the City Council and that the City Council rationally concluded that the CZA is consistent with the comprehensive plan and in basic harmony with existing and permitted uses in the original zone. Because the
record before the City Council supports its legislative determination that the CZA is consistent with the comprehensive plan and because the CZA therefore does not violate ...