Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 2, 2007
DocketYORap-02-042thru044
StatusUnpublished

This text of Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York (Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York) 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.

Bluebook
Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York, (Me. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK/ ss. DOCKET NOS. AP-02-042 AP-02-043 AP-02-044 p,q F- Y O R - 212 , , 5 03;-

WILLIAM T. WOODS and LILA WOODS, et al.,

Plaintiffs - ORDER - .. v. '

THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF YORK,

Defendant

On October 7, 2005 I signed an order staying the defendant's motion for . ._. summary judgment to permit the plaintiffs to seek necessary state and federal permits.

Those permits have been granted and the parties have filed supplemental briefs.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted as to Counts I1

(the State Constitutional claims) and Counts I11 (the Federal Constitutional claims). The

Maine Supreme Judicial Court has determined that the state and federal claims would

require the same analysis in h s case. See MC Associates v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2001

ME 89, ¶11, 773 A.2d 439, 443. The test is whether the York zoning restrictions have

caused the properties to lose all value. MC Associates, at ¶11, or "all practical value",

Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, 450 A.2d 475, 482 (Me.

1982).

In this case the evidence presented by the plaintiffs' own expert, before he

attempted to distance himself from I-us opinion, was that each property was worth

about $7,800.00. Another expert admitted that the property would have a nominal value, but have value. Regardless of whether the newly enacted "Wetland Protection

Bonus" provision of the York Zoning Ordinance, §7.6.4(B)(3)adds practical value some

modest value existed and exists.

While the properties with land use restrictions have a significantly reduced

value, enough value, which to the owners must be discouragingly small, remains to

defeat a state or federal constitutional challenge to the zoning restrictions.

The entry is:

Judgment for the defendant on Counts I1 and I11 in AP-02-42, AP-02-43 and AP-02-44.

Dated: February 2,2007

(/"A '5 /* I Paul A. Fritzsche Justice, Superior Court

William B. Devoe, Esq. - PLS William V. Ferdinand, Jr., Esq. - PLS Judy A. S. Metcalf, Esq. - PLS Durward Parkinson, Esq. - DEF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MC ASSOCIATES v. Town of Cape Elizabeth
2001 ME 89 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission
450 A.2d 475 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-inhabs-of-the-town-of-york-mesuperct-2007.