Woods v. Inhabs. Of the Town of York
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.