## Facts

- Coleman P. Gorham owned a single-family residence in Cape Elizabeth’s Residence-A zoning district, where multi-unit dwellings were allowed only by conditional use permit.
- Gorham applied in August 1989 for a conditional use permit to create an additional apartment within the existing structure, without exterior or parking changes.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals held three public hearings and received letters, testimony from residents, and three real estate appraiser reports addressing property-value impacts.
- The Board unanimously denied the application, finding the project would “adversely affect the value of adjacent properties” under the zoning ordinance’s conditional use criteria.
- Gorham filed (1) a Rule 80B appeal challenging the denial as unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary, (2) a declaratory judgment action challenging the ordinance as unconstitutional and an improper delegation, and (3) a due process claim alleging Board bias against multi-family housing.
- The Superior Court ruled for the Town on all counts, and Gorham appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the proposed multi-unit dwelling would adversely affect adjacent property values, and whether the denial was arbitrary or unreasonable.
2. Whether the ordinance’s property-value criterion lacked a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare, or constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
3. Whether Gorham was denied procedural due process because Board members were biased or had prejudged applications for multi-family dwellings.

## Decision

- The Law Court affirmed the judgment for the Town on all counts.
- It held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record despite conflicting appraisal evidence.
- It upheld the ordinance as constitutional, concluding that protecting property values is a legitimate zoning objective and that the ordinance supplied an adequate standard for conditional use review.
- It rejected the due process claim, finding no showing of disqualifying bias or prejudgment.

## Legal Principles

- In Rule 80B review of local land-use decisions, courts determine whether the record contains substantial evidence supporting the board’s findings and do not reweigh conflicting evidence.
- Zoning ordinances are presumed constitutional, and the challenger bears the burden to prove invalidity.
- Maintenance of property values is a legitimate public-welfare objective that may be addressed through zoning restrictions and conditional use criteria.
- A conditional use standard requiring that a proposed use not adversely affect adjacent property values can be sufficiently definite to guide administrative discretion and does not, by itself, amount to an unconstitutional delegation.
- Administrative decisionmakers are presumed to act in good faith; a due process violation requires a concrete showing of disqualifying bias or prejudgment, not merely general policy views or community opposition.

## Conclusion

The Maine Law Court sustained the Town’s denial of a conditional use permit to add a residential unit, holding that the Board’s property-value finding had substantial evidentiary support, the property-value criterion was a valid and sufficiently defined zoning standard, and the record did not demonstrate unconstitutional bias or denial of a fair hearing.


Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898 (Me. 1993)