Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 4 denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. It also addressed whether comments made by decisionmakers prior to public hearings on the matter resulted in a bias that violated the landowner's due process rights. The Background/Facts: In 2004, Hollie A. Beal ("Beal") acquired property in Stockton Springs (the "Town"). The property included a 556-square foot building that had been approximately 100 years earlier as a grain storage shed. The building had more recently been used as a residence. In 2014, after receiving complaints about the condition of the property, the Town's Code Enforcement Officer ("CEO") visited the property. The CEO had concerns about the safety of the building. Ultimately, the Town's Board of Selectmen (the "Board") set a public hearing to determine whether the building constituted a "dangerous building" within the meaning of Maine statutory law-17 M.R.S. § 2851. Under 17 M.R.S. § 2851, municipal officers are authorized to, after notice and hearing, order "what disposal must be made" of a building that is deemed "structurally unsafe; unstable; unsanitary; constitutes a fire hazard; is unsuitable or improper for the use or occupancy to which it is put; constitutes a hazard to health or safety because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment; or is otherwise dangerous to life or property . . .." Prior to the hearing on the dangerousness of Beal's building, during informal negotiations with Beal, one of the members of the Board had stated that he believed that the building should be "condemned." Beal later requested that the three members of the Board recuse themselves from determining the dangerousness of her building because they "had already prejudged the case." The Board members then expressly stated on the record, at the public hearing, that "they had not already decided the issue and would base their decision on the evidence presented at the hearing." Each of the Board members declined to recuse themselves from participating in the hearing and from the subsequent decision - making on the safety of Beal's building. During the hearing, the Board heard testimony from the CEO, Beal's general contractor, and Beal. The Board asked witnesses questions that were submitted, but did not allow Beal's counsel to question any of the witnesses by either direct or cross examination. Beal's attorney was permitted to submit written questions that the Board would then pose to the witness. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board members voted unani- mously that the structure was a dangerous building. However, on a later date, the Board reopened the hearing "for the purpose of allowing additional testimony to be presented to ensure all areas of the definition of a dangerous building have been thoroughly explored." Beal attended ©2017 Thomson Reuters 9