Gair v. Inhabitants of the Town of Eliot

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.

YORK COUN'I'Y SlJI'EKLOI: COUK'T PT,AINrL'l FFS

Dan Gair, Pro Se Holly Hunter, Pro Se 44 Starboard Love Rd Eliot Ile 03903

William Hamilton, Pro Se 11 Maddy T,ane Eliot Me 03903

Nick Papin, Pro Se Bruce Turgeon, Pro Se 22 Boyce Rd Eliot Me 03903

Dan Stout, Pro Se Jennifer Morgan, Pro Se -- /Z 'iidy Road Eliot Me 03903

DEFENDANT: Town of Eliot Christopher Vaniotis, Esq, BERNSTEIN SIIUR SAWYER AND NELSON PO Box 9729 Portland Me 04104-5029

DEFENDANTS: Bill Cullen, Tony Bullis arlri KBM Builders Sanford Roberts, Esq. SHhHEEN h CORDON PO Box 4608 Portsmouth i i 03801