Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

'(" :'! , " (I,/i~,'t, . '.\\:.;::.? ,\e May 25, 2008 I Volume 21 No.1 0 to serve 'those lots." The court thus concluded that: the town's duty to call the bond was triggered only by the conveyance of those lots. . The court next concluded that the granting of mortgage interests in sub- division lots did not constitute conveyances of lots within the meaning of the statute. In reaching that conclusion, because neither "conveyance" nor "lot" was defined in the statute, the court looked at how those terms were COII1Illonly used. Looking at dictionary definitions of the terms, the court ,concluded that a conveyance of a lot was a transfer of title to a parcel of land from one person or class of persons to another by deed. The court rejected EHBS's argument that becaUse the term "convey- ance" could include the transfer of a mortgage intere.st, the transfer of the mortgage interest to it triggered the town's obligation to call the bond. The coUrt said that statutory terms could not be taken out of context, but must be consistent with the language of the statute of which they were a part. The court noted that although a person could convey a mortgage interest, the clear language of the statute required the conveyance of a lot. Again, the court had determined that the "conveyance of a lot" meant a transfer of ownership of a parcel. With the transfer of a mortgage interest, there was no transfer of ownership, only title, said the court. Finding there was no transfer of ownership of a parcel of the subdivision within five years of the subdivision apprQval,the court concluded that the town's duty to call the bond was not triggered under the statute. See also: Broadnax v. City of New Haven, 284 Conn. 237, 932 A.2d 1063,155 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P 60513 (2007). Case Note: The court further explained that although a mortgagee gained legal title to the property, the mortgagor remained its true owner. Variance-Town grants variance to property .owners, finding lack of a house was a unique circumstance Abutting landowners challenge variance, arguing there was no' unique circumstance ' Citation: Camp v. Town of Shapleigh, 2008 ME 53, 943 A.2d 595 (Me. 2008) MAINE (03/19/08)-Richard and Rosemarie Glidden owned property on Treasure Island in the town; In 2006, the, Gliddens applied to the town for a building permit. The Gliddens proposed to build a 24 foot 7 I ~ .':, , ~ _..' .' 1" ~' :7.... ~' .(.., .-' i. ! .:~ .,. 99