Gair v. Inhabitants of the Town of Eliot

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIO:? COURT C ~1~ ACTION I -'T,-T-T CL\C NS.AP-05-037 I 7 7-7 I\ , u DL4NGAIX, et a] ., Plain tiffs ORDER INHABITANTS OF THE I'OWN OF ELIO?' KBM BUILDEIIS,INC., Defendants This case comes before the Court 01 1 Peti tioi~ers Dan 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 Eliot. Following hearing, the l~ appeal is Granted and the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is vacated. RACKGROI!ND On ?:!arch 15, 2005, tJe P!alui~~g Bc;c?rd t:t h e l i ; ; . ~i;f~E!ic;t appri:vt.d , ~ > c i six-1st t ~ l - a j subdivisioli. to be located on the corner ot Boyce and '1-idy Roads. '!he d.eveloper ~r and owner e the p r o ~ e r t y KBhl Btailclers. f is 0 1 1 April 13,2!3, Petitionersi a residing ((5 ! 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 ~ e LISP Knad 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 e , access tile 111ai~iroad. to (J'i-diiiai~ie rccjiiiri.s streets to be ~7 -- - iif Seiticii-L~ i - / ' u the ,.. ,.. \ ) 1;lilliil7~~1;l 1 1 f t j ~ (\! ie::t ::licit. ' l ' w i i ~ . ~I ),~ 'L! ! 11.e21 11g i indicltec? kl1:1t Fi~yc-c !?.n;ld i.:thii-trrn fee+ wide). .\I!-horugli hie F l a l l ~ ~ i Roa1-d stated in ~ig 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- ~\ihethert spccificall y waived tila!- provi s i o r as i it had d ! , tor anotli-el- p r ( ~ v i s i ~ jn ~the Orciinance. 1 o!? )r cletermined that t l ~ l-'l'lruGng LJnard did not waive c 1 1 its decision, the ZBA 1 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 col~cludil~g tile Planning Board did not act contrary to t l ~ c that Ordinance, the ZBA denied I'e ti ticjners' appeal. Petitioners filed a tmicly appeal to tiUs Court. DlSCUSSION L ti tioners oppcise the project pri rnari l y k ; e i ~ i ~ i ~ e e ' Ecliyce I?oad and Tidy Roaci a:-? substanciard roads and unabiiz to sc~pport further increases ill tl-affic. Peutiol~ers argue 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~. liot prolwsiiig a new accccs:: r-oad, $4 i -22-l(L;)(3) is clocs not appl j.' - 1 7-1.- 'L,c pi2i ii.,g 1.,,...., j,,LC;IILC,!!jl 4 .,,,,.., C; ,, ,, ::~njvec! UVL,l.Cl 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 Ciirtnti<:ii 5 $!~-21!(5)(3) ti:!: !'!sl:i.:?.i!:g f!r~.?rr! i!? :?!>!'I!?P!-case. ' ! ' ! ? c : p i ~ r p ~ s tl. a trial of t h fa(-ts is sf by n ~ 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 iiit'oriil~tiijii i ~ ~ p o i i c I t . iseek to ad:~:it ict:: cvitic~?co a :!>-. ~ ~ r'-"- exp!a~i;!tio!~ the interpretatic~n : ~ts is !:!t r n t ~ -! ~ + ~ r.)f b y the !'!.;:::;iiig Rnard ct a provisic?n of the Ordilinl~ce.'!!ir.ie a r e J ~ I P ~ f;~cts, ? r l t !-at1it.r opinions. l 111terpi.etation of an O r - d i ~ i ~ ~ n c ~i q u ~ s t i o nof l c i ~ ito be clcterruiiicd by this Court. Klil.l~rizskiv. is t . , I'LJI iluticl Y L I C ~ I / 2001. RJIZ 147,11 9,782 A.2d 783,786. 1 i : c opinion oS the planning board 's articulated 21iil~; ( i in L separate cast. !r?:?v be co!l.sidercd 2 5 i l ~ l i ~ iri tlie nat111.v o t "prccedent"; i?o~vcver, is n o t billding o n : ig it the court. r i l e blotio~;for I rial of t l i p Facis is Denied. .L. - LI L L ~ L ~iiscrctic)~l, elasc~1-1 lcll\-,Lr ~ 1 j i s ; 1 . ' 1 ' , ., . . c l ~ I ~ I L ~ L ~I L I , S L I ~ ~ C ) ~ ~ L C ~ S ~ vy;i~i!?! ~ :! J l~ [(It.! 1 e ~ I ~ S L?jr S C I ~ I ~ 2 I 6 7,7 . \ 5 ,6 ~~l-d." A t l l ~ a r t v seeking to p 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 tin ding^. Tirnclcer v. kro71uver Dev. i - Co;p., 20G3 30, Oj S, 81s i',.2?. 1013,lOLY7. I:~terprc!.!iori of t11.e ~rovisions a n ortiii1ai:cc is a c;ucstion o law. l<~{i*itr?rski of f 27. Pu~tl~77z~i c"iz~11, Lircizt 200i iviE 147, 11 9, 782 A.2ci 783, 786. The langiiage at issue in the ' ordinance must be construed reaso~lablyand with wgard to both the ordinance's specific objecbve and its general structure. Icl. Lac11 undef~ned term is gei~erally given accepted ineai~img ess tile context of the ordinance clearly uni its conunon 'li-td gei-tcrc~11y li-tdlcates otlier~vise.S P 'I'usuiz ~ o f U i l ~ 0 7a. ~ Stroii;;, 681 A.2d 14, 17 (Me. 1996) (interpreting .. St.cti:,n 41-221 of the Eliot Zolul~g Ordinaiico 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. until it has d ~ r e c t access to a strec.t or 1-(,;1(-i previo~i~slaccepted by tlie town or y stztc. Suc1-1 street. cr road msst he j r r r ~ r ~ and shall meet the minimum n reauiremenis of a ~ i 1 1 e r sfree!, a defii~;_ed sectioi~35-51, ri street or road in ivl;cl~ the tor1111 has iioi main t ~ i i ~ e d o lwriod of 20 yea-s shall be rfi~acceptable for for- u ~ & v i s ~ 2cce.s. s o;-L 'The p l a n ~ ~ i l boarci and the LljA cieicrnl!n ~ diat this section only appiies when lg d i;iterp~-eta!ic.!? contrar;~t !he plai13 la!~~;!!,~:lrc ! i i he 01-dilia~ict.. str-eets referred to is c . : c 'liic 1 tile siiuaiicjn ~ v i ~ e n a p~.c!pvsedsubciivisio~\ a]:;(.I !pi-c)~ic,~e~;skeeis. i~cii,\ . . -,~ ~,,,-: ,,.,: -.~ ! &I-2; LL~ > i i ' ? . \ i , - hLLLIL,LL i(l3)(2j i~iU,,,L,. b; /I <. r I I - fr 1 I i : ; c ~ ~ ; ~y : ; : ~ i r ~ ' { ~ p s 1;:;: I --. , , I . . I ".""",-- L L L ~ I L L L C L '1 L L ' 3 TL- ~ ~ ~~i!-ypis.i<;?ille~,~~ : [ ~ I LCI s > ~ ! ~ ~ ~ iiL I I>jte1'a i i ( j "a strpot o r I-nad which , 11otmniiita~ncdfor 20 yc,lrs.'" ihl-l~ these references refer to streets of tile tocvn If already in cxiste~~cc. 541-2L[(b)(3)refers to proposed streets in new subdivisions - r ? t ! ~ ~ r l ~ lexl sting str~ets, tli-(r T_)etc:rl~j 11. 1 t! ~ as r? ts 1 reters to "strccts ~vllicii s~11~divicie.1a proposes" \\ is'J1ule 1<BXI argucd ill its bi:ici illat - the11 541 -27.1 (I 1)(2),~~\!i~icJl explicit1y :I.!(.; c ) L I ci ~ i;ici be Lr tinccessary. i-equiren~entsof 5-11.-221(23)(3)were waived, at l~caril-lg candidly ack~~c.)wlcdged the ZBA c.xplicitlv found that no it that waiver had becn col~sidcred.There is no evidclricc in the record to support a finding of waiver. * I he Defel-tdai~t:: suggest that the 7 i i i terprui,ltion of the ordinance asserted by the Peti tio~i-ers vvo~tld st.i-!i;ii~l>. linpede c i c ~ e l o p i ~ i ~ l i t activity 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. r!']lc e!i.tr\i :,~j?i.ll a.: t(7llnw.;. be 'j7lIe Pt!titiijilel-x' apoeal is (Z1-,li-Ltcd tl-,L ,<ccisioil c,[ tjIc ZB;? is \Jacated, ;!i-id J bIa~-c!i. &; 300.5 Dated: . , , 1 Y, , .-..; -. ----. G. A r t l ~ u Brcnnan r -- 3 1 'S ~p 541-22 l(bj(2) reacis: streets ~i-hicli SLI b d i ? , ~ d cPI-o!?osesslinl! nlc:~?!tht, !iiinlm~lmi-ccluirc!rlients of street design a r and ciu~i.~truction qtandal-'1s In div1sio1-i2 of Article 11 of ci;,?!?iel-37 o this C'r~ciewliether the streets are to f remain pri vatc o r be deiilcateci tor p~1i7iic ~ \ : r i e r s h i p . ~ 1\11 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.