Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raposa v. Town of York

Supreme Court of Maine

February 26, 2019

DANIEL RAPOSA JR. et al.
v.
TOWN OF YORK et al.

          Submitted On Briefs: January 17, 2019

          Sandra L. Guay, Esq., Woodman Edmands Danylik & Austin, P.A., Biddeford, for appellants Daniel Raposa Jr. and Susan Raposa

          Mary E. Costigan, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellee Town of York

          Matthew W. Howell, Esq., Clark & Howell, LLC, York, for appellee Joshua Gammon York County Superior Court docket numbers AP-2016-34, 35 For Clerk Reference Only

          Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          REPORTER OF DECISIONS

          MEAD, J.

         [¶1] Daniel and Susan Raposa appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (York County, O'Neil, J.) dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the Raposas' Rule 8OB complaint for review of factual findings made by the Town of York's Board of Appeals. Because we hold that the court has jurisdiction to review the Board's decision, we vacate the judgment and remand to the Superior Court for consideration of the complaint on the merits.

         I. BACKGROUND

         [¶2] The Raposas own residential property in York that abuts property owned by Joshua Gammon. Gammon has used his property for his commercial landscaping business since purchasing it from party-in-interest Peter Marcuri in 2014. Marcuri had used the property both for his excavation business and as his residence.

         [¶3] On March 26, 2016, the Raposas contacted the Town's Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) to express their concern that Gammon's use of the property was not consistent with Marcuri's nonconforming use. The CEO responded by email in April, stating that

[t]he uses on the lots are consistent with the previous uses and no violations are warranted at this time. If you would like to appeal this determination, . . . [p]lease contact [the Board of Appeals] regarding the appeals process per article 18.8.2.1., which states, "The Board of Appeals shall hear and decide Appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by any person or Board charged with administration of this Ordinance."

         [¶4] The Raposas appealed the CEO's decision to the Town's Board of Appeals in May. Three hearings were held on the appeal, during which the Raposas, their counsel, Gammon's counsel, the CEO, and other abutters presented testimony. Although the Board granted the Raposas' appeal for reasons not relevant to this appeal, the Board also made factual findings that were not in the Raposas' favor, namely that the use of the lot by Gammon's landscaping business did not constitute a change in use but rather was an intensification of the previous use.

         [¶5] The Raposas appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 8OB, challenging the Board's factual findings. The Town moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).[1] The court granted the Town's motion to dismiss, finding that the Board's review of the CEO's decision was advisory and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.