Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

May 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 J Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin Conditions—City Planning Board grants permit with condition that city planner may approve minor project changes Permit opponent argues condition is improper delegation of legislative authority and violates city zoning ordinance Citation: Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2015 ME 32, 2015 WL 1198605 (Me. 2015) MAINE (03/17/15) This case addressed the issue of whether a city planning board's issuance of a conditional use penult with a condition that allowed the city planner to approve minor changes to the project plans was a violation of the city zoning ordinance and/or an improper delegation of legislative authority. The Background/Facts: In March 2013, Wayne and Michelle McClel- lan (the "McClellan") applied for conditional use permits to build a disc - golf course on two parcels of land in the City of Saco, Maine (the "City"). The proposed disc -golf course was situated in several different zoning districts, which each required conditional use penults for the proposed use. Ultimately, the City's Planning Board voted to grant conditional ap- proval for the project and issued conditional use permits for construction in the various zoning districts. One of the conditions of approval was that "[n]o deviations from the approved plans [were] permitted without prior approval from the Planning Board for major changes, and from the City Planner for minor changes." Fred Fitanides ("Fitanides") owned a campground that abutted the proposed disc -golf course. Fitanides opposed the proposed disc -golf course. Fitanides appealed the conditional use approval to the City's Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). Among other things, Fitanides argued that the Plan- ning Board improperly delegated legislative authority of review of minor changes to the City Planner. The ZBA afiuured all aspects of the Planning Board's decision except for the delegation of authority to the City. The ZBA remanded the matter to the Planning Board. Ultimately, the Planning Board voted to reaffirm its earlier decision without change. Fitanides appealed. The ZBA voted to deny Fitanides' appeals. Fitanides again appealed, and the superior court affirmed the ZBA's decisions. Fitanides again appealed. Again, Fitanides contended that the Planning Board erred in issuing a conditional use permit with a condition that al- lowed the City Planner to approve minor changes to the project plans. 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters