Ogunquit News
Maine Supreme Court denies Ogunquit Village Estates appeal
By Jennifer L. Saunders
OGUNQUIT - The Maine Supreme Court has denied an appeal that would have paved the way for the proposed Ogunquit Village Estates retirement community to move forward.According to the decision of Nov. 7, which came in an appeal by the developers of the project of the earlier case of William R. Bodack v. Town of Ogunquit et al, the justices affirmed the York County Superior Court decision, though noting their reasons are different ones.
York County Superior Court had previously overturned the decision of the Ogunquit Planning Board granting preliminary approval to Ogunquit Village Estates, LLC, the Seafarer Development Group and Stephen T. Hallett to build the residential subdivision.
In filing the most recent appeal, the developers argued the court "improperly vacated the Planning Board's decision," and that the board's "determination that the subdivision would not cause an unreasonable impact on traffic, and its grant of a waiver of the access requirement in the Board's Subdivision Standards, are … supported by applicable law and substantial evidence in the record," according to the judgment issued by the Supreme Court last week.
On appeal, however, the earlier judgment of Superior Court Judge Paul Fritzsche has been affirmed, meaning the 35-unit retirement community will not move forward at this time. It was proposed for two lots of approximately 50 acres of land on Berwick Road.
Before the Planning Board granted preliminary approval back in early 2005, Bodack had raised various concerns about the subdivision, according to court documents, including traffic impact at the intersection of Berwick Road and Route 1. Bodack subsequently appealed the Planning Board's approval.
According to the court's recent findings, issued to the town of Ogunquit, "In this case, the Planning Board never made a finding that the waiver was granted due to extraordinary and unnecessary hardships or the special … circumstances attendant to the developers' plan, nor did it disclose the considerations or factual findings supporting the waiver. The Planning Board is required to make written factual findings sufficient to show the parties, the public, and an appellate court the basis for its decision to grant the waiver. Although the evidence did not preclude the Planning Board from making such findings … because the Planning Board failed to make any written factual findings as to why it granted the waiver, the Planning Board's decision granting a waiver of the access requirement was correctly vacated."
The earlier judgment has been upheld; however, the Maine Supreme Court did note its difference of opinion with the Superior Court.
"We disagree with the Superior Court's conclusion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to allow the Planning Board to find the existence of extraordinary and unnecessary hardships or special circumstances necessary to support a waiver of the access requirement," the findings state.
