STATE O F M AINE YORK, ss.
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL A CTION DOCKET N O. AP-09-038
n"i r:
' / U Y2 I"
~
_~ / /:) ,) ,)/{)
'
!
J OHN K. R UDOLPH, e t al., Plaintiffs
v.
ORDER A ND DECISION
A LAN L . GOLICK, e t al., D efendants T he p laintiffs r eside i n S outh B erwick i n t he Residential 3 z oning d istrict o n p roperty n ext t o t he real estate of d efendants A lan G olick a nd Lisa T hompson. O n J uly 20, 2009 t he d efendant p roperty o wners s ubmitted a n a pplication f or a b uilding a nd u se p ermit f or a " Horse B arn/Riding A rena" w hich w ould i nclude a "70' x 210' Pole b arn t o b e u sed a s a 50' x 70' Stall b arn w ith 12 stalls, tack r oom, g rain r oom, o verhead h ay s torage, a ttached t o a 70' x 160' R iding a rena." A fter the plaintiffs objected to the
r equest t he S outh B erwick C ode E nforcement officer g ranted t he r equested p ermit o n J uly 30, 2009. I n A ugust t he p laintiffs filed a timely a ppeal t o t he S outh B erwick B oard o f A ppeals w hich p romptly h eard t he a ppeal a nd i ssued i ts decision o n S eptember 17, 2009 d enying t he appeal. The B oard's d ecision i s w ell crafted, is b oth w ell focused a nd c omprehensive a nd a llows f or effective judicial review. A n a ppeal f rom t he B oard's d ecision h as b een filed, b riefed a nd a rgued. I t is, h owever, t he C ode E nforcement O fficer's d ecision t hat is the o perative d ecision for r eview b y t his Court. Mills v. Town o f
Eliot, 2008 ME 134, <[13, 955 A.2d 258, 263 a nd S outh B erwick Z oning O rdinance a t
R135. T he n eeds a nd c oncerns of b oth s ets o f l andowners a re l egitimate a nd u nderstandable. T he d efendants d emonstrated a w illingness t o m ake s ubstantial U ltimately t he d esire f or
a ccommodations to l essen t he i mpact o n t heir n eighbors.
residential t ranquility a nd t he n eed for a nd d esire t o o perate a s mall b usiness conflict. The q uestion is w hether t he d efendants' p roposed u se i s p ermitted i n t he R-3 z oning d istrict. T he a nswer to t hat q uestion t urns o n h ow t he p roposed u se i s characterized. T he p roject w ould p ermit u p t o 12 h orses t o b e b oarded for c ompensation a nd w ould i nclude i ndoor r iding. The plaintiffs h ave a rgued t hat t his p roposal i s e ither a p rohibited " Commercial R ecreation" facility o r i s a t ype o f u se n ot p ermitted u nder t he o rdinance, w hile t he d efendants a rgue t hat i t is a form o f p ermitted a nimal h usbandry. T he r ecord i ncludes t he S outh B erwick Z oning O rdinance w hich c ontains i n T able A, R-148, a l ist of p ermitted a nd p rohibited u ses b y z oning d istrict. " AgricultureĀ Livestock" is p ermitted i n t he R-3 zone, C ommercial R ecreation i ncluding i ndoor r ecreation facilities is not. " Agriculture, L ivestock" is defined, a t R-47, a s " See' Animal H usbandry'" w hich i s defined, also a t R-47, as " The k eeping o f a ny d omesticated a nimals o ther t han h ousehold p ets." " Commercial R ecreation" is d efined a t R-50, a s " Any c ommercial e nterprise w hich r eceives a fee i n r eturn f or t he p rovision o f s ome r ecreational activity, i ncluding b ut n ot l imited t o r acquet c lubs, h ealth facility, a musement p arks, golf courses, etc. ...." T he d efendants' u se h as e lements o f b oth a nimal h usbandry a nd c ommercial r ecreation a nd fits n either d efinition precisely. H orses a re d omesticated a nimals t hough t he h orses w ill b e o wned b y o thers. T he o wners o f t he h orses w ill p ay a fee p rimarily for the care a nd f eeding of t he h orses, b ut w ill h ave t he o pportunity t o e ngage i n t he
2
" recreational a ctivity" of h orseback r iding o n t he d efendants' p roperty a s p art of a c omprehensive s ervice. The scale of t he d efendants' p roposed u se is m ore m odest t han t he e xamples of r acquet c lubs, a musement p arks, g olf c ourses a nd t he like. The Z oning O rdinance a lso lists t he p urposes o f t he v arious d istricts, see R-72-74. The R-3 district is d esigned "(1) To p rovide for d istributed m edium-density r esidential d evelopment i n a n a rea w here l and a nd t ransportation facilities a re a vailable a nd (2) To d irect g rowth w here i t c an b e p lanned for t he m ost r easonable u se o f c ommunity s ervices." This c ontrasts w ith t he e ntry, a t R-73, for t he R-4, R ural R esidential District, w hich h as a p urpose, " To p rovide a n a rea w here a gricultural a nd c onservation u ses a re e ncouraged." W hile t his is a close q uestion, I c onclude t hat a s a m atter o f l aw t he b etter fit is to c haracterize t he d efendants' u se a s a c ommercial r ecreation facility r ather t han a nimal h usbandry. T hey w ill b e o perating a b usiness i n a r esidential z one w hich r eceives a fee, w hich i n p art, a llows t he h orse o wners to e ngage i n t he r ecreational activity o f h orseback r iding. T hey a re n ot m erely k eeping t heir o wn a nimals f or t heir o wn u se i n t heir o wn b arn. S ome c ommercial activity is p ermitted i n t he R-3 zone, this t ype i s not. The e ntry is:
D ecision o f J uly 30, 2009 of t he S outh B erwick C ode E nforcement O fficer
a pproving t he b uilding p ermit a pplication o f A lan G olick a nd L isa
T hompson is r eversed.
D ated: M arch 10, 2010
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: WILLIAM H. DALE, ESQ. JENSEN BAIRD ET AL PO BOX 4 510 PORTLAND ME 0 4112 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT TOWN OF SOUTH BERWICK CHRISTOPHER L . VANIOTIS, ESQ. BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON PO BOX 9729 PORTLAND ME 0 4104-5029
rlr!;~:f-t3
Justice, S uperior C ourt
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS ALAN L . GOLICK & LISA THOMPSON DURWARD W. PARKINSON, ESQ. BERGEN & PARKINSON 62 PORTLAND RD KENNEBUNK ME 0 4043
