Sanborn v. Town of Gray
This text of Sanborn v. Town of Gray (Sanborn v. Town of Gray) 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
35 SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF MAINE oe OS ee etl CIVIL ACTION
CUMBERLAND, ss one -\, snq DOCKET NO. POR-AP-00-009 Jax 25 AN OZ yap Crs W/o 8. MARK SANBORN, et al, Plaintiffs Vv. DECISION AND ORDER
TOWN OF GRAY, et al,
Defendants
The plaintiffs appeal the decision of the Town of Gray Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), in which the ZBA granted defendant Sullivan’s appeal and variance request. For the following reasons, the decision of the ZBA is reversed.’
Defendant Sullivan owns property in the Shoreland Zone of Gray. In 1987, defendant Sullivan erected a shed on the property but did not acquire a building permit. The Ordinance in effect in 1987 required a 75-foot setback from the high water line of a body of water and a building permit for any principal or accessory structure. See Record, Ex. H.
In 1999, the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Gray sent a notice of violation to defendant Sullivan and informed defendant Sullivan that the shed on his property was in violation of the Town of Gray Building Code and the Town of Gray Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. See Record, Ex. B. Defendant Sullivan wrote to
the Code Enforcement Officer and requested that the town grant him a variance so
1 The defendants did not file a brief. that the shed could remain on defendant Sullivan’s property. See Record, Ex. C. Defendant Sullivan also applied to the ZBA for a variance. See Record, Ex. A. After two hearings, the ZBA voted in favor of a motion to “grant the appeal of the decision of the C.E.O.” See Record, Ex. E. The chairman of the ZBA also signed a “Certificate of Zoning Variance Approval,” which provided “Variance and Conditions of Variance: to grant appeal of the decision of the C.E.O.” See Record, Ex. F.
There is no evidence in the record to support the grant of a variance. See Record, Ex. D at 5-6; Record, Ex. E; Record, Ex. G at 36; Record, Attachment 1 at 86-87; Goldstein v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 66, J 4, 728 A.2d 164, 165. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding, if made, that the shed was a non- conforming structure and not subject to the setback requirements of the ordinance. See Record, Ex. B; Record, Ex. D at 5-6; Record, Ex. E; Record, Ex. G at 4; Record, Ex. H, {1i; Record, Attachment i at 83.
The entry is
The Decision of the Town of Gray Zoning Board of Appeals is REVERSED.
Date: January 24, 2002
Nancy Mills, V
Chief Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed 94-31-00
Action APPEAL - 80(b)
MARK SANBORN JOHN GOOSETREY GERALD GRANT RONALD NORTON PAMELA WILKINSON
Plaintiff’s Attorney
WILLIAM H. DALE, ESQ. NATALIE L. BURNS, ESQ. P.O. BOX 4510 PORTLAND, MAINE 04112
CUMBERLAND
County
Docket No. AP-00-009
THE TOWN OF GRAY THOMAS REINSBOROUGH JAMES A. SULLIVAN
Defendant’s Attorney
KEVIN GRIMES, ESQ. (Sullivan) 82 PORTLAND ROAD KENNEBUNK, MAINE 04043
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sanborn v. Town of Gray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanborn-v-town-of-gray-mesuperct-2002.