## Facts

- Jane Waddle obtained a town building permit to expand her home, describing the project as extending a mudroom and adding a garage with indoor-outdoor kennels.
- After construction, Waddle operated the Great Island Dog Kennel, a for-profit facility with 11 indoor-outdoor runs and capacity to board about 15 dogs.
- The property was in a Commercial Fishing II District where “home occupations” were permitted under the shoreland zoning ordinance.
- The ordinance defined “home occupation” as an occupation customarily conducted on residential property that is compatible with surrounding residential uses and employs no more than three on-site nonfamily workers.
- Donald and Marietta Toussaint, nearby summer residents, requested zoning enforcement to stop the kennel; the code enforcement officer declined.
- The Toussaints appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which heard evidence including neighborhood testimony that the kennel was not disruptive and Waddle’s evidence of similar kennels on residential properties elsewhere.
- The ZBA upheld the code enforcement officer’s determination that the kennel qualified as a permitted home occupation.
- On judicial review, the Superior Court vacated the ZBA decision as an error of law and remanded for enforcement.
- Waddle appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court).

## Issues

1. Whether the dog kennel qualified as a permitted “home occupation” under the ordinance, including whether it was “customarily conducted” on residential property and “compatible” with surrounding residential uses.
2. Whether the Superior Court improperly substituted its judgment for the ZBA’s factual determinations instead of applying substantial-evidence review.
3. Whether an alleged conflict of interest or bias by a ZBA member required setting aside the ZBA decision.

## Decision

- The Law Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment affirming the ZBA decision.
- The court held the ZBA could reasonably determine, on this record, that a for-profit dog kennel was “customarily conducted” on residential property and compatible with surrounding residential uses as required by the ordinance.
- The court held the Superior Court erred by reweighing evidence and substituting its view of compatibility for the ZBA’s.
- The court rejected the conflict-of-interest challenge because the record did not show a disqualifying direct or indirect financial interest or comparable improper influence.

## Legal Principles

- Interpretation of a zoning ordinance begins with the ordinance text; broadly drafted “home occupation” definitions may include nontraditional or more intensive uses if the stated criteria are met.
- In review of municipal land-use decisions, courts examine whether the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and do not reweigh facts or replace the board’s local judgment on compatibility and neighborhood conditions.
- Compatibility determinations (e.g., neighborhood noise and character) are primarily factual matters for the zoning board when supported by record evidence.
- A zoning decision is not invalidated for alleged bias or conflict absent proof of a disqualifying direct or indirect financial interest or other demonstrated impairment of impartial decision-making.

## Conclusion

The Law Court held that the ZBA’s approval of Waddle’s for-profit dog kennel as a permitted home occupation was supported by substantial evidence and that the Superior Court erred by substituting its factual judgment for the board’s; the case was remanded for entry of judgment affirming the ZBA, and the claimed board-member conflict did not warrant reversal.


Toussaint v. Town of Harpswell, 698 A.2d 1063 (Me. 1997)