|
Richert v. City of South Portland
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 1999 ME 179
Docket: Cum-99-273
Argued: October 6, 1999
Decided: December 3, 1999
Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
JOAN RICHERT
v.
CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND et al.
DANA, J.
[¶1] Joan Richert appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior
Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) affirming the decision of the City of
South Portland Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that Charles and Virginia
Secor were the "resident occupants" of a South Portland building and could
therefore engage in the "home occupation" of letting rooms.{1} Richert
contends, inter alia, that the Secors are not the "resident occupants" of the
dwelling during the approximately ten months of the year they are living in
Connecticut. We agree, and vacate the judgment.
[¶2] The Secors have maintained their property for many years as a
legally nonconforming two-family dwelling. The Secors use the ground floor
dwelling unit when they visit Maine, and they lease the second floor to
tenants. The focus of this appeal, however, is the Secors' rental agreement
with two individuals who share the space in which the Secors reside when
they visit Maine, but reside primarily on the third floor of the residence.
[¶3] Joan Richert is a neighbor of the Secors who became concerned
that the property was being used in violation of the zoning ordinance. This
concern resulted from her observation of an increased number of
automobiles and trash cans on the property. Richert reported these
concerns to Pat Doucette, the South Portland Code Enforcement Officer
(CEO).
[¶4] On February 24, 1998, the CEO inspected the Secors' property
and found that the third-floor attic had been illegally converted into a third
dwelling unit. After a series of communications with the CEO, the Secors
sent a statement to her signed by the third floor occupants stating that they
were boarders in the Secors' home, not tenants in an independent dwelling
unit. The occupants had responded to an advertisement listing the third
floor as a partially furnished apartment. In their statement, the individuals
reported that they had full access to the entire first floor unit for cooking
and living facilities. Given this new information, the CEO ceased pursuit of
any claim of violation against the Secors, and informed Richert of her
decision. Richert filed a timely appeal with the ZBA.
[¶5] After a hearing, the ZBA voted unanimously to deny Richert's
appeal. In addition to the facts stated above, the ZBA found that the Secors
spend a portion of each summer season in their South Portland home and
occasionally travel there for weekend visits throughout the remainder of the
year. However, the Secors maintain their primary residence in Connecticut,
where the City sends their tax bills and any other communications.
[¶6] "When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate
court, we review directly the decision of the municipal [ZBA] for abuse of
discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in
the record." Lewis v. Town of Rockport, 1998 ME 144, ¶ 9, 712 A.2d
1047, 1049. Our review includes an examination of the record developed
before the ZBA. See Cobbossee Dev. Group v. Town of Winthrop, 585 A.2d
190, 192 (Me. 1991). We will not upset the decision of a ZBA unless it was
"unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Juliano v. Town of Poland,
1999 ME 42, ¶ 5, 725 A.2d 545, 547 (quoting Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441
A.2d 1023, 1029 (Me. 1982)).
[¶7] Section 27-55 of the South Portland Zoning Ordinance states
that the letting of rooms or taking of boarders "may be conducted by
resident occupants only." South Portland, ME. Code § 27-55 (1998)
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we must decide whether the ZBA erred by
interpreting the term "resident occupant" to include individuals such as the
Secors who actually occupy their property only for a few weeks each year.
The interpretation of a zoning ordinance is a question of law. See Town of
Union v. Strong, 681 A.2d 14, 17 (Me. 1996). The disputed language "must
be construed reasonably and with regard to both the ordinance's specific
object and its general structure." Lewis, 1998 ME 144, ¶ 11, 712 A.2d at
1049 (quoting Strong, 681 A.2d at 18). "Each undefined term is generally
given its common and generally accepted meaning unless the context of the
statute clearly indicates otherwise." Id. (quoting Strong, 681 A.2d at 18).
[¶8] By the ZBA's reasoning, any individual having a possessory
interest in residential property in South Portland who makes actual use of
the property for any period of time during a given year is the "resident
occupant" of that property throughout the entire year for the purpose of
operating a "home occupation" on the property.{2} Giving the phrase
"resident occupant" its common and ordinary meaning, we cannot agree
with the conclusion reached by the ZBA. Inherent in being the occupant of a
residence is that the individual actually live in the residence. Even the
definition on which the ZBA relied states that the occupant must be in
"actual use, possession or control" of the property. See Black's Law
Dictionary 1078 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added).{3}
[¶9] We do not expect the City of South Portland to track the number
of days each individual holding a possessory interest in property within the
City actually spends on her property. However, it is evident from the record
that the Secors annually spend, at most, six weeks in the summer and an
occasional weekend in South Portland. While we would not require the
operator of a home occupation to refrain entirely from temporary absences,
e.g., a vacation, such is not the case here. There is no dispute that the
Secors' primary residence is in Connecticut. Accordingly, under no fair
interpretation of the term, are we able to conclude that the Secors remain
the "resident occupants" of their South Portland home during the lengthy
periods of time they are living in Connecticut.
The entry is:
Judgment of the Superior Court vacated.
Remanded with instructions to vacate the
decision of the South Portland Zoning Board of
Appeals and remand to the South Portland
Zoning Board of Appeals for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Attorney for plaintiff:
Seth D. Harrow, Esq., (orally)
Smith Elliott Smith & Garmey, P.A.
100 Commercial Street, Suite 302-308
Portland, ME 04101
Attorneys for defendants:
Mary K. Kahl, Esq., (orally)
City of South Portland
P O Box 9422
South Portland, ME 04106
Frederick H. Greene III, Esq., (orally)
P O Box 7490
Portland, ME 04112
(for Charles and Virginai Secors)
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . Section 27-55 of the zoning
ordinance defines the term "home occupation" as follows: An occupation
or profession which is: Customarily carried on in a dwelling unit or in
a building or other structure accessory to a dwelling unit; carried
on by a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit; clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential
purposes; conforms with the following conditions: . . . . (f) The following
are examples of permitted uses under this definition: . . . . (5)Letting
of rooms or taking of boarders to a maximum of two persons conducted by
resident occupants only. South Portland, ME., Code § 27-55
(1998) (emphasis added). {2} . The ZBA reached its conclusion by piecing
together the definitions of each word in the term "resident occupant"
as defined by Black's Law Dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary defines "resident"
as follows: Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present
intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the
genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence
within the State together with the indicia that his presence within the
State is something other than merely transitory in nature. Black's Law Dictionary
1309 (6th ed. 1990). "Occupant" is defined as a: [p]erson in possession.
Person having possessory rights, who can control what goes on on [the] premises.
One who has actual use, possession or control of a thing. Id. at 1078. {3}
. Cf. Redevelopment Auth. of Allegheny County v. Stephanik, 360 A.2d 300,
302 (Pa. 1976) (defining the term "occupancy" as "requir[ing]
more than the mere right to possess or control property-the right to possess
or control must actually be exercised"); Kasper v. Town of Brookhaven,
535 N.Y.S.2d 621, 626 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988) (upholding the constitutionality
of an ordinance permitting residents who actually occupied their
homes to secure permits for accessory rental apartments but denying permits
to nonresidents). In Kasper, the court stated that all the petitioner had
to do to apply for such a permit was occupy his home. Id.
|