Foye v. City of Westbrook
This text of Foye v. City of Westbrook (Foye v. City of Westbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE UMAR Loy ne SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss Wo tee CIVIL ACTION . 7 DOCKET NO. AP-00-045 Jed & ou ay "0 AIM, CUM - Ly pool JAMES W. FOYE, MARK C. FOYE, and ANDREW L. BROADDUS, Plaintiffs vs. DECISION AND ORDER
CITY OF WESTBROOK,
Defendant
The plaintiffs appeal the April 19, 2000 decision of the City of Westbrook Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA denied the plaintiffs’ request for a 10-foot front yard variance in order to construct a single family home. The plaintiffs argue that the ZBA's finding that the grant of the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood is not supported by evidence in the record and that the ZBA erred in failing to make findings with regard to the three other criteria required to establish undue hardship. See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4353 (4) (Supp. 2000).
Based on the transcript of a VCR tape obtained from the City of Westbrook's cable television channel, which was provided at the court’s request after the briefs were filed and without objection, there is competent evidence in the record to support the ZBA's finding that the granting of a variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. See, e.g., Transcript at 8-10, 17.
The better practice would be for the ZBA to address all of the criteria involved
in consideration of a variance request. See Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023,
1026-27 (Me. 1982). The plaintiffs must show, however, that the evidence compelled the ZBA to grant the variance. See Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916
(Me. 1995). Because all four criteria must be shown for the granting of a variance,
the plaintiffs cannot make that showing on this record. See Pepperman v. Town of
Rangeley, 659 A.2d 280, 283-84 (Me. 1995).
The entry is The Plaintiffs’ Appeal is DENIED.
The Decision of the City of Westbrook Zoning Board of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Date: December 31, 2000 [Mises Jo
Nancy Mills Justice, Superior cold
Date Filed 05-19-00 CUMBERLAND
Docket No. _AP 00-045
Action APPEAL 80(B)
County
JAMES W. FOYE MARK C. FOYE ANDREW L. BROADDUS
CITY OF WESTBROOK
VS,
Plaintiff’s Attorney
ANDREW L. BROADDUS, ESQ 854-1236 PO BOX 368, WESTBROOK, ME 04098
Date of Entry
Defendant’s Attorney
RICHARD A. SULLIVAN, ESQ. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
854-9105
2 YORK ST., WESTBROOK, ME 04092
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Foye v. City of Westbrook, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foye-v-city-of-westbrook-mesuperct-2001.