CLIFFORD, J.
[¶ 1] Rockland Plaza Realty Corporation (Plaza Realty) appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Knox County, Mar sano, J.) affirming the Rock-land Zoning Board of Appeals’ interpretation of four Rockland Zoning Ordinance provisions. Plaza Realty contends that the Board erred in interpreting Ordinance provisions regarding building coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping. We discern no error and affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Ellsworth Builders Supply, Inc.1 owns and operates a retail building materi[258]*258als store on a parcel of land in Rockland's commercial zoning district. The lot contains several structures that are preexisting nonconforming uses with respect to setback, lot size, and street frontage requirements. Plaza Realty owns the abutting parcel and rents it out to commercial tenants.
[¶ 3] In November of 1999, Ellsworth Builders filed a site plan review application with the Rockland Planning Commission seeking to expand and renovate two of the nonconforming structures and remove other nonconforming structures on the lot, in addition to adding parking and landscaping. Plaza Realty opposed the plan, arguing that its approval would violate building coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping requirements. The Commission, however, concluded that Ellsworth Builders’ plan conformed to all Rockland Zoning Ordinance requirements.
[¶ 4] The Commission then voted to table any further review of Ellsworth Builders’ plan pending final approval because of Plaza Realty’s indication that it would file an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals challenging the Commission’s construction of the Zoning Ordinance.2 Plaza Realty did file an appeal to the Rockland Zoning Board of Appeals on December 20, 1999. The Board upheld the Commission’s interpretation of the contested provisions.
[¶ 5] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B, Plaza Realty filed a complaint in the Superior Court naming the City of Rockland, the Planning Commission, and Ellsworth Builders as defendants, and challenging the Board’s interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance provisions at issue. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and remanded the case “to the Planning Commission to issue an expansion permit” (Emphasis added). This appeal by Plaza Realty followed.
I.
[¶ 6] We first address whether this case is ripe for decision. Generally, final action by an administrative body is required before a party can appeal that action. See, e.g., Lakes Envtl. Ass’n v. Town of Naples, 486 A.2d 91, 95-96 (Me.1984). Pursuant to Rockland’s Site Plan Review Ordinance, however, the Board is permitted to hear appeals regarding the Commission’s interpretation of ordinance provisions prior to the final approval of a plan, see supra note 2. Plaza Realty did take such an appeal to the Board. Following the decision of the Board, Plaza Realty appealed the Board’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to the Superior Court without waiting for a remand from the Board to the Commission for final approval of the site plan and issuance of the expansion permit. Moreover, the only issue that Plaza Realty has raised is the Board’s construction of four Zoning Ordinance provisions. We have in the past permitted parties to appeal an agency’s interpretation of a statute as a matter of [259]*259law prior to a final agency action. See Annable v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 507 A.2d 592, 595-96 (Me.1986). Furthermore, all the substantive decisions on which final approval of the site plan would be based have already been made and all that remains for the Planning Commission to do is the ministerial act of issuing an order of final approval of the plan.3 Indeed, the judgment entered by the Superior Court is a final judgment, and mandates remand to the Planning Commission “to issue an expansion permit.” Therefore, although this appeal by Plaza Realty to the Superior Court is not from the Commission’s final approval of the plan, as would generally be required, we nevertheless agree to take and decide Plaza Realty’s appeal as a matter of law in the interest of judicial economy and to prevent further delay because all that remains before the Planning Commission is the ministerial act of final approval.
II.
[¶7] Plaza Realty contends that the Board misinterpreted four provisions of the Rockland Zoning Ordinance by determining that the provisions permit the expansion of nonconformity on Ellsworth Builders’ property. Plaza Realty argues that the four Rockland Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding budding coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping are ambiguous, and must therefore be interpreted to reduce nonconformity rather than to permit its perpetuation or expansion. When, as here, the Superior Court acts in its intermediate appellate capacity, we review directly the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mayberry v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 599 A.2d 1153, 1154 (Me.1991). The interpretation of an ordinance is a matter of law that we review de novo. DeSomma v. Town of Casco, 2000 ME 113, 118, 755 A.2d 485, 487.
A. Building Coverage
[¶ 8] The Zoning Ordinance provides:
A non-conforming structure may be added to or expanded after obtaining a permit ... with the following conditions; ... The budding coverage within each setback area (i.e. front, side, rear) may be increased by no more than 30% during the lifetime of the structure.
Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-308(3)(A)(2) (Mar. 6, 2000). Plaza Realty contends that the language of this section prohibits any building expansion that increases building coverage by more than thirty percent of the original size of the building being renovated. Specifically, Plaza Realty notes that the reference to “the lifetime of the structure” indicates an intent to limit a building coverage analysis to one specific building. We disagree.
[¶ 9] The Board concluded that this provision prohibits building expansion that increases building coverage by more than thirty percent of the total area of all the structures in the setback area. The reference to “the lifetime of the structure” serves only to show that building coverage limitations are cumulative over the life of the expanded structure(s) and not a limit on each expansion. If read otherwise, the provision would allow a thirty percent expansion multiple times and render the lim[260]*260itation a nullity. We agree with the Board.
[¶ 10] By its plain language, this provision refers to building coverage within the entire setback area rather than the building coverage of one particular building, and therefore, the thirty percent increase should be measured in comparison to all the buildings in the setback area rather than one particular building within that area. Thus, according to the language of this provision, the thirty percent figure can take into account the decrease in building coverage from buildings being removed from the setback area, and therefore allows developers some flexibility in complying with the provision. “[T]he lifetime of the structure” language merely provides a time frame against which to measure the expansion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CLIFFORD, J.
[¶ 1] Rockland Plaza Realty Corporation (Plaza Realty) appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Knox County, Mar sano, J.) affirming the Rock-land Zoning Board of Appeals’ interpretation of four Rockland Zoning Ordinance provisions. Plaza Realty contends that the Board erred in interpreting Ordinance provisions regarding building coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping. We discern no error and affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Ellsworth Builders Supply, Inc.1 owns and operates a retail building materi[258]*258als store on a parcel of land in Rockland's commercial zoning district. The lot contains several structures that are preexisting nonconforming uses with respect to setback, lot size, and street frontage requirements. Plaza Realty owns the abutting parcel and rents it out to commercial tenants.
[¶ 3] In November of 1999, Ellsworth Builders filed a site plan review application with the Rockland Planning Commission seeking to expand and renovate two of the nonconforming structures and remove other nonconforming structures on the lot, in addition to adding parking and landscaping. Plaza Realty opposed the plan, arguing that its approval would violate building coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping requirements. The Commission, however, concluded that Ellsworth Builders’ plan conformed to all Rockland Zoning Ordinance requirements.
[¶ 4] The Commission then voted to table any further review of Ellsworth Builders’ plan pending final approval because of Plaza Realty’s indication that it would file an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals challenging the Commission’s construction of the Zoning Ordinance.2 Plaza Realty did file an appeal to the Rockland Zoning Board of Appeals on December 20, 1999. The Board upheld the Commission’s interpretation of the contested provisions.
[¶ 5] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B, Plaza Realty filed a complaint in the Superior Court naming the City of Rockland, the Planning Commission, and Ellsworth Builders as defendants, and challenging the Board’s interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance provisions at issue. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and remanded the case “to the Planning Commission to issue an expansion permit” (Emphasis added). This appeal by Plaza Realty followed.
I.
[¶ 6] We first address whether this case is ripe for decision. Generally, final action by an administrative body is required before a party can appeal that action. See, e.g., Lakes Envtl. Ass’n v. Town of Naples, 486 A.2d 91, 95-96 (Me.1984). Pursuant to Rockland’s Site Plan Review Ordinance, however, the Board is permitted to hear appeals regarding the Commission’s interpretation of ordinance provisions prior to the final approval of a plan, see supra note 2. Plaza Realty did take such an appeal to the Board. Following the decision of the Board, Plaza Realty appealed the Board’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to the Superior Court without waiting for a remand from the Board to the Commission for final approval of the site plan and issuance of the expansion permit. Moreover, the only issue that Plaza Realty has raised is the Board’s construction of four Zoning Ordinance provisions. We have in the past permitted parties to appeal an agency’s interpretation of a statute as a matter of [259]*259law prior to a final agency action. See Annable v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 507 A.2d 592, 595-96 (Me.1986). Furthermore, all the substantive decisions on which final approval of the site plan would be based have already been made and all that remains for the Planning Commission to do is the ministerial act of issuing an order of final approval of the plan.3 Indeed, the judgment entered by the Superior Court is a final judgment, and mandates remand to the Planning Commission “to issue an expansion permit.” Therefore, although this appeal by Plaza Realty to the Superior Court is not from the Commission’s final approval of the plan, as would generally be required, we nevertheless agree to take and decide Plaza Realty’s appeal as a matter of law in the interest of judicial economy and to prevent further delay because all that remains before the Planning Commission is the ministerial act of final approval.
II.
[¶7] Plaza Realty contends that the Board misinterpreted four provisions of the Rockland Zoning Ordinance by determining that the provisions permit the expansion of nonconformity on Ellsworth Builders’ property. Plaza Realty argues that the four Rockland Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding budding coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping are ambiguous, and must therefore be interpreted to reduce nonconformity rather than to permit its perpetuation or expansion. When, as here, the Superior Court acts in its intermediate appellate capacity, we review directly the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Mayberry v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 599 A.2d 1153, 1154 (Me.1991). The interpretation of an ordinance is a matter of law that we review de novo. DeSomma v. Town of Casco, 2000 ME 113, 118, 755 A.2d 485, 487.
A. Building Coverage
[¶ 8] The Zoning Ordinance provides:
A non-conforming structure may be added to or expanded after obtaining a permit ... with the following conditions; ... The budding coverage within each setback area (i.e. front, side, rear) may be increased by no more than 30% during the lifetime of the structure.
Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-308(3)(A)(2) (Mar. 6, 2000). Plaza Realty contends that the language of this section prohibits any building expansion that increases building coverage by more than thirty percent of the original size of the building being renovated. Specifically, Plaza Realty notes that the reference to “the lifetime of the structure” indicates an intent to limit a building coverage analysis to one specific building. We disagree.
[¶ 9] The Board concluded that this provision prohibits building expansion that increases building coverage by more than thirty percent of the total area of all the structures in the setback area. The reference to “the lifetime of the structure” serves only to show that building coverage limitations are cumulative over the life of the expanded structure(s) and not a limit on each expansion. If read otherwise, the provision would allow a thirty percent expansion multiple times and render the lim[260]*260itation a nullity. We agree with the Board.
[¶ 10] By its plain language, this provision refers to building coverage within the entire setback area rather than the building coverage of one particular building, and therefore, the thirty percent increase should be measured in comparison to all the buildings in the setback area rather than one particular building within that area. Thus, according to the language of this provision, the thirty percent figure can take into account the decrease in building coverage from buildings being removed from the setback area, and therefore allows developers some flexibility in complying with the provision. “[T]he lifetime of the structure” language merely provides a time frame against which to measure the expansion. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance itself defines “building coverage” as “[t]he horizontal area measured at the outside of the exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot.” Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-302 (Mar. 6, 2000). When a statute specifically defines a term, we cannot redefine it. Musk v. Nelson, 647 A.2d 1198, 1201 (Me.1994). Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that expansion is permitted unless it increases building coverage by more than thirty percent of all the buildings in the entire setback area.
B. Building Height
[¶ 11] The Zoning Ordinance also provides:
A non-conforming structure may be added to or expanded after obtaining a permit ... with the following conditions: ... The height of any part of the addition or expansion that extends into the setback area shall not exceed the height of the encroaching part of the existing structure nor the height allowed in the zoning district, whichever is less.
Rockland, Me., Rockland Zoning Ordinance § 19-308(3)(A)(3) (Mar. 6, 2000). Building height is defined as, “the vertical distance from the mean elevation of the original grade or existing street level, whichever is higher, around the perimeter of the building to the highest point of a flat roof .... Height limitations shall not apply to chimneys, steeples, water standpipes or spires .... ” Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-302 (Mar. 6, 2000). The plan of Ellsworth Builders provides for the construction of a cupola on a building inside the setback area which, if its height were included as part of the height of the building, would violate the building height Ordinance by increasing the height of the renovated structure above that of the existing structure. Plaza Realty contends that the Board erred in concluding that because the “cupola does not add functional space and is similar to a chimney,” its measurement is not included in the calculation of building height.
[¶ 12] Statutory language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Mullen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 589 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Me.1991). We have often relied on dictionaries to determine such meanings. Furthermore, statutory language should be interpreted to avoid absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results. Town of Madison, Dep’t of Elec. Works v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 682 A.2d 231, 234 (Me.1996). “Cupola” is defined as “[a] domed roof or ceiling” or “[a] small, usually domed structure surmounting a roof.” The AMERICAN HeRitage Dictionary 349 (2d ed.1982). Similarly, “chimney” is defined as “[a] passage through which smoke and gases escape from a fire or furnace” or “[t]he part of such a structure that rises above a roof.” The American Heritage Dictionary 266 (2d ed.1982). The two structures are similar in definition, purpose, and appearance. Although the [261]*261Ordinance specifically recites a list of structures that are excluded from the calculation of building height, and a cupola is not included in that list, to vacate the Board’s conclusion on this basis would be an overtechnical interpretation of the Ordinance and would disregard the intent and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance to exclude from height restrictions those structures which are largely ornamental. If chimneys were excluded from building height calculation but the similar cupolas were held to be included, the result would be absurd, illogical, and inconsistent. Thus, the Board’s determination that a cupola is similar to a chimney and is therefore excluded from the measurement of building height is not error.
C. Parking
[¶ 13] The Zoning Ordinance provides, “Sufficient space shall be provided at each retail store or shopping center to provide at least three (3) square feet of off-street parking space for each one (1) square foot of floor area.” Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-307(6) (Mar. 6, 2000). The Ordinance further states, however, “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this Section shall be construed as requiring compliance by non-conforming owners with situations which existed prior to the effective date of this Section, July 1, 1974.” Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-307(10) (Mar. 6, 2000).
[¶ 14] Plaza Realty contends that: (1) although Ellsworth Builders’ plan provides for more parking, the amount of that parking is nevertheless insufficient, and (2) because the parking “situation” on Ellsworth Builders’ lot is changing with the renovations, this new situation is no longer exempt from Ordinance parking requirements. We disagree. The present status of Ellsworth Builders’ parking existed pri- or to the effective date of the parking ordinance provision, July 1, 1974, and it is therefore an existing “situation” within the meaning of section 19-307(10) of the Ordinance. The Board committed no error in concluding that the Zoning Ordinance exempts Ellsworth Builders’ plan from its parking requirements.
D. Landscaping
[¶ 15] The Zoning Ordinance provides, in part, “In addition to required perimeter landscaping, at least five (5) percent of the gross area of all parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking spaces shall be landscaped. Existing parking lots shall be exempt from this requirement although landscaping should be provided to the greatest extent possible.” Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-316(G)(10)(a)(i) (Mar. 6, 2000). The Ordinance further recommends that such landscaping include at least two canopy trees, one understory tree, and five shrubs for every twelve parking spaces. Rockland, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-316(G)(10)(a)(ii) (Mar. 6, 2000). The Board determined that Ells-worth Builders was exempt from these provisions because its lot was an existing lot.
[¶ 16] Plaza Realty contends that Ells-worth Builders’ plan does not satisfy these provisions and that the Board erroneously exempted it from the requirements by characterizing the lot as an existing lot. Again, we disagree. First, the provision regarding the types of landscaping that should be installed is merely a recommendation rather than a mandatory requirement. Moreover, the plain language of the landscaping provision states its inapplicability to existing lots. We have already determined that Ellsworth Builders’ lot was previously existing and it is therefore exempt from these requirements. Furthermore, Ellsworth Builders’ plan does propose to add landscaping, thus bringing [262]*262its parking area more in compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The Board did not erroneously determine that Ellsworth Builders’ lot was exempt from landscaping requirements.
[¶ 17] Finally, Plaza Realty contends that all of the foregoing provisions are ambiguous, and that ambiguous provisions must be interpreted to reduce nonconforming uses rather than perpetuate or expand them. The Zoning Ordinance does provide: “In no case shall a structure be reconstructed or replaced so as to increase its nonconformity.” Rockland, Me., Rock-land Zoning Ordinance § 19 — 308(3)(C)(1) (Mar. 6, 2000). We have said: “Nonconforming uses are a thorn in the side of proper zoning and should not be perpetuated any longer than necessary. The policy of zoning is to abolish nonconforming uses as swiftly as justice will permit.” Mayberry, 599 A.2d at 1154 (quoting Farley v. Town of Lyman, 557 A.2d 197, 201 (Me.1989)).
[¶ 18] Although zoning provisions permitting continued nonconformity, such as Rockland’s Zoning Ordinance, should generally be strictly construed, Mayberry, 599 A.2d at 1154, our task in construing statutes and ordinances, including zoning ordinances, is nevertheless to discern the intent of the legislative bodies that enact them. Town of Madison, Dep’t of Elec. Works, 682 A.2d at 234. The Board’s interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance are reasonable and supported by the plain language of the four provisions at issue here, which in turn reflect the intent of those who enacted the Ordinance. These renovations and expansions actually reduce the nonconformity of Ellsworth Builders’ parcel rather than increase it. Although the drafters of the Rockland Zoning Ordinance intended that nonconformities be reduced, it is also clear that even the strictest interpretation of the Ordinance does not require their immediate and complete elimination in contravention of its plain language, which provides for numerous exemptions and exclusions. The Board committed no error in interpreting the Rockland Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding building coverage, building height, parking, and landscaping.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.