Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2014

Home

August 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 i Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin the interests of the community as a whole." Consent Decree/Nonconformin Use —City and quarry operator settle zoning dispute with consent decree Neighboring landowner argues consent decree is unenforceable because it results in a forfeiture of the City's enforcement powers Citation: Pike Industries, Inc. v. City of Westbrook, 2014 ME 85, 2014 WL 2885395 (Me. 2014) MAINE (06/26/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city gave up some of its enforcement powers as a result of a consent decree with a landowner. The Background/Facts: Pike Industries, Inc. ("Pike") owned and operated a quarry in Westbrook, Maine (the "City"). Artel, Inc., IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., and Smiling Hill Farm, Inc. owned property and operated businesses near Pike's quarry. In 2008, IDEXX submitted a letter to the City's Code Enforce- ment Officer ("CEO"), asserting that Pike did not have a right to operate a quarry on its property. Pike asserted that, based on the prior use of land by its predecessor -in -interest, it had a vested right to operate a quarry, a rock -crushing plant, a concrete plant, and an asphalt plant on the property. Eventually, the CEO found that Pike did have grandfathered rights to operate the existing quarry on the property, but that it did not have grandfathered rights to operate the plants on the property. Pike and IDEXX both appealed the CEO's decision to the City's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"). The ZBA reversed the CEO's decision, concluding that Pike did not have a grandfathered right to operate the quarry either. In the meantime, the City attempted to rezone Pike's property, revoke Pike's blasting permits, and take other steps to end Pike's quarrying operations. In response to the ZBA's decision and the City's actions, Pike filed a com- plaint in Superior Court, seeking review of the ZBA's decision. Pike also as- serted claims for equitable relief and sought to enjoin the City from enforcing its zoning ordinances. IDEXX, Artel, and Smiling Hill all intervened. The court affirmed the ZBA's decision. In an attempt to settle the remaining claims, the City, Pike, and IDEXX agreed to enter into a consent decree that al- lowed Pike to continue its quarrying operations and established a set of govern- ing performance standards. After this first decree was approved by the court, Artel and Smiling Hill appealed. They argued, among other things, that the consent decree was unenforceable because the City did not have the statutory authority to settle the litigation with a consent decree that exempts the property from a zoning ordinance. The court concluded that the City did have the authority to settle the litiga- 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters