Gair v. Inhabitants of the Town of Eliot
Opinion
SUPERIO:? COURT
7
CI ~1~ ACTION I,\
7-7
u CL\CI NS.AP-05-037
-'T,-T-T
DL4NGAIX, et a] .,
Plain tiffs
ORDER
INHABITANTS OF THE I'OWN OF ELIO?'
KBM BUILDEIIS,INC.,
Defendants
This case comes before the Court 011 Peti tioi~ersDan Gair, Holly Hunterr Vtrilliam
Hamiltol~,Dan Stout, Jeluufer !dlorganr Nick l'apili, slid Bruce 'l'urgeon's 80B appeal of
r
the decision oi tile Zoning Board of Appeais of the Town or cliot to deny iheir a p p e d -1.
from a decision of the Planning Board of the T o ~ v of l ~ Eliot. Following hearing, the
appeal is Granted and the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is vacated.
RACKGROI!ND
15, 2005, tJe P!alui~~gBc;c?rd t:t h e l i ; ; . ~i;f, ~E!ic;t >
On ?:!arch ~ appri:vt.d ci six-1st
t ~ l - a j subdivisioli.
~r to be located on the corner ot Boyce and '1-idy Roads. '!he d.eveloper
and owner ef the p r o ~ e r t yis KBhl Btailclers. 0 1 1 April 13,2(!(35, Petitionersi a! residing
within 1/ 8 mile from the proposed subdivision, appealed the Pla~vung Board's
approval of the subdivision to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA").The ZBA denied
the appeal.
!'l;jti t i ~ i i ( ~ q E o ~ r ~Knad LISP e a n t i 'I'i d y iio,lcd, whicll il lev assert ai-c siibska~~dard
road.: according tn tile O r d i ~ ~ a n c eto, access tile 111ai~iroad.
-- -
Seiticii-L~ i - / ' uiif the ,.. ,..
(J'i-diiiai~ierccjiiiri.s streets to be ~7 1;lilliil7~~1;l ie::t ::licit. ' l ' w i i ~ . ~I )\ ,~ 'L)! ! 11.e21i 11g (\! 1 1 f t j ~
indicltec? kl1:1t Fi~yc-c!?.n;ld i.:thii-trrn fee+ wide). .\I!-horugli hie F l a l l ~ ~ i Roa1-d ~ i g stated in
its Conclusioll that the standards of the subdivi:;ion ordinai~cc(Chapter 41-) have been
ol- will be met, the l'la~ining Board accepted tile final site plan ~.vithout~l-~el~tioning
bvhether it co~sldcrcd5 41 22!(b)1(3) cu- ~\ihetheri t spccificall y waived tila!- provi s i o r as
) r ~the Orciinance. 1
it had do!!,? tor anotli-el- p r ( ~ v i s i ~ jn 111 its decision, the ZBA
cletermined that t l ~ l-'l'lruGng c LJnard did not waive 5 41-221, ra'u'yci-it found tilat 5 41-221
did not apply because there was no access road proposed within the subdivision. In
that tile Planning Board did not act contrary to t l ~ cOrdinance, the ZBA col~cludil~g
denied I'e ti ticjners' appeal. Petitioners filed a tmicly appeal to tiUs Court.
DlSCUSSION
Le' ti tioners oppcise the project pri rnari l y k ; e i ~ i ~ iEcliyce ~e I?oad and Tidy Roaci a:-?
substanciard roads and unabiiz to sc~pportfurther increases ill tl-affic. Peutiol~ersargue
that the Plal-uling Board did not considcr, a s -rfvas required undtlr the Ordinance,
~vhctherthe proposclcl subdivi.sior had n di.rect ciccess to a street or road, previously
zccc_.ctedby !he Ti,,v.rn. Ordinance 5 41-22?(h)(:\! !<ISM l31.lil(3r.rs argue tlla t since the
dcvelope~.is liot prolwsiiig a new accccs:: r-oad, $4 i -22-l(L;)(3)clocs not appl j.'
--
1 7-1.-
'L,c pi2i ii.,g1.,,....,4 j,,LC;IILC,!!jl UVL,l.Cl .,,,,.., C; ,,,, ::~njvec! 5 4-!%!)\! !), t!?e soi! r e p ! - ! :111.c!
survey.
KHhl a n d [Tie '['own have also rn<lde a motion lor ;I tri'il on 1.11~facts based on a more recent .L. -L LICiirtnti<:iisf 5 $!~-21!(5)(3)
L ~ L by ti:!: !'!sl:i.:?.i!:g f!r~.?rr! i!? :?!>!'I!?P!-case. ' ! ' ! ? c : p i ~ r p ~ sntl. a trial of t h fa(-ts ~ is
to cisserl. ilew t h a t 117erp ui:av,~:ini?ie a t tile tiwe o! iilc iilil-lg of tiic cr_l~n:,iai~li.111 iilis case, tile ~ t s to ad:~:it ict:: cvitic~?cois a :!!:>!-t. ~ ~ r'-"-
iiit'oriil~tiijii: i ~ ~ p o i i c I t . iseek r n t exp!a~i;!tio!~ ~ -! ~ + ~ r.)f the interpretatic~n b y the !'!.;:::;iiig Rnard ct a provisic?n of the Ordilinl~ce.'!!ir.ie a r e J ~ I Pf;~cts, ~ l ? r l t !-at1it.r opinions.
111terpi.etation of an O r - d i ~ i ~ ~ nisc ~i , be clcterruiiicd by this Court. Klil.l~rizskiv.
t . q u ~ s t i o nof l c i ~ ito I / 2001. RJIZ 147,(11 9,782 A.2d 783,786. 1 i : c opinion oS the planning board 'is articulated I'LJI iluticl Y L I C ~21iil~; in L: separate cast. !r?:?v be co!l.sidercd 2 5 i l ~ l i ~ iri i g tlie nat111.v o t "prccedent"; i?o~vcver,it is n o t billding o n the court. r i l e blotio~;for I rial of t l i p Facis is Denied.
. . c l ~iiscrctic)~l, ~ 1 lcll\-, elasc~1- 1 ~ I ~ ~ :! J l~ [(It.! 1 e ~ ~ l - d . "
Ljr ~ I ~ I L ~ L~ ~I LI I~ , SS L I ~ ~ CL?jr) ~S ~ LC CI ~ S ~ vy;i~i!?!
i s ; 1 . ' 1 ' , ., 2 I 6 7,7 . \ 5 ,6 A t l l ~p a r t v seeking to
over turn the planning board's decision, I'eLi tic,::crs have the bul-den of demonstrating
thclt no corn peten t evidence supvorts the [ ~ c a hc?ardls i tin ding^.
- Tirnclcer v. kro71uver Dev.
Co;p., 20G3 30, Oj S, 81s i',.2?. 1013,lOLY7.
I:~terprc!.!iori of t11.e ~rovisionsof a n ortiii1ai:cc is a c;ucstion of law. l<~{i*itr?rski 27.
Lircizt c"iz~11,200i iviE 147, 1' 1 9, 782 A.2ci 783, 786. The langiiage at issue in the Pu~tl~77z~i
ordinance must be construed reaso~lablyand with wgard to both the ordinance's
specific objecbve and its general structure. Icl. Lac11 undef~nedterm is gei~erallygiven
accepted ineai~imguni ess tile context of the ordinance clearly its conunon 'li-td gei-tcrc~11y
li-tdlcates otlier~vise.S P 'I'usuiz ~ ~ Stroii;;, 681 A.2d 14, 17 (Me. 1996) (interpreting o f U i l ~ 0 7a.
..
St.cti:,n 41-221 of the Eliot Zolul~gOrdinaiico aciciresses street anti iraiiic concerns
for proposed subdivisic?ns. Section 41-221(b)(3)provides:
Ihe plannin~rboard shall not consider (.)I- approve a subdivision plan uldess or b.
y accepted by tlie town or until it has d ~ r e c taccess to a strec.t or 1-(,;1(-i previo~i~sl stztc. Suc1-1 street. cr road msst he j r r r ~ r ~ and n shall meet the minimum reauiremenis of a ~ i 1 1 e rsfree!, a defii~;_ed in sectioi~35-51, ri street or road ivl;cl~ the tor1111has iioi main t ~ i i ~ efor d o lwriod of 20 yea-s shall be rfi~acceptable for-s u ~ & v i s ~ 2cce.s.
o;-L
'The p l a n ~ ~ i l boarci lg d this section only appiies when and the LljA cieicrnl! n ~ diat
i;iterp~-eta!ic.!?is contrar;~tc.: !he plai13 la!~~;!!,~:lr c c ! i i he 01-dilia~ict..
1 'liic str-eets referred to
tile siiuaiicjn ~ v i ~ ea np~.c!pvsedsubciivisio~\a]:;(.I!pi-c)~ic,~e~ i ~ c i i , \ ;skeeis. ".""",--
L '1 L L L L L ~ I L L L C 3 T L - '
~ ! : ,,.,: -.,,,- . . --
,~~>ii'?.\i,-~ LL i~iU,,,L,. hLLLIL,LL &I-2; i(l3)(2j ' { ~ p s 1;:;:
b;
i : ; c ~ ~ ; ~y
i : ;r: ~~ ~ ~~i!-ypis. ~ ~ ~ iiL I ~ : [ ~ I LCI > ~ ! i<;?ille~,~ ~s
/I <. I r I - fr 1 I I --.
,
,
I . . I , I>jte1'a i i ( j "a strpot o r I-nadwhich
tile tocvn of these references refer to streets 11otmniiita~ncdfor 20 yc,lrs.'" ihl-l~
already in cxiste~~cc.If 541-2L[(b)(3)refers to proposed streets in new subdivisions - -
r ? t ! ~ ~t r! l ~ lexl ~ sting str~ets,as tli-(r T_)etc:rl~jr? 11ts . 1 1 :I.!(.; explicit1y the11 541 -27.1 (I 1)(2),~~\!i~icJl
proposes" \ \ c ) L I ci
reters to "strccts ~vlliciia s~11~divicie.1- ~ be Lr tinccessary.
is'J1ule 1<BXI argucd ill its bi:ici illat i;ici i-equiren~entsof 5-11.-221(23)(3)were
that the ZBA c.xplicitlv found that no waived, at l~caril-lgit candidly ack~~c.)wlcdged
waiver had becn col~sidcred.There is no evidclricc in the record to support a finding of
waiver.
* 7 I he Defel-tdai~t::suggest that the i i i terprui,ltion of the ordinance asserted by the
vvo~tldst.i-!i;ii~l>.linpede c i c ~ e l o p i ~ i ~ Peti tio~i-ers activity lit within to;vn and the court
shouici construe tile ordii1ai;ci. tc; avoid such a ;-:suit. While i31zt may be accurate, it is
n o t the court's role to lclgislatc - or pt'sl~aps in this case to un-legislate. That
responsibility is vcsted in the citizcns of Iliot.
be a.: t(7llnw.;.
r!']lc e!i.tr\i :,~j?i.ll
'j7lIe
J
;!i-idtl-,L ,<ccisioil c,[ tjIc ZB;? is \Jacated, Pt!titiijilel-x' apoeal is (Z1-,li-Ltcd
-.-----.
Dated: bIa~-c!i. &; 300.5 . ,,
1
Y,, .-..; 1
G. A r t l ~ u Brcnnan
r 'S
-- ~p
3 541-22 l(bj(2) reacis: 1\11 streets ~i-hiclia SLI b d i ? , ~ d cPI-o!?oses r slinl! nlc:~?!tht, !iiinlm~lmi-ccluirc!rlients of street design and ciu~i.~tructionqtandal-'1s In div1sio1-i2 of Article 11 of ci;,?!?iel-37 of this C'r~ciewliether the streets are to remain pri vatc o r be deiilcateci tor p~1i7iic ~~\:riership.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gair v. Inhabitants of the Town of Eliot (Gair v. Inhabitants of the Town of Eliot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.