Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,--) <br /> <br />"'.........,.".. <br />{ <br />i <br /> <br />; <br />. <br />\.~ <br /> <br />June 25, 20081 Volume 21 No. 12 <br /> <br />See also: Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. B01'Ough of Fair Lawn Bd. of <br />Adjustment, 152 N.J; 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1998). <br /> <br />Case Note: ill reaching its conclusion on the "COO variance, the court <br />rejected the Abbotts' argument that measurement to determine con- <br />formity with height requirements should be taken from the re-grade. <br />To accept that argument, the court said, - would allow a property <br />. owner to undertake a "mountainous re-grade" of his property and <br />then build a deck on top of it, thus obtaining an excellent view at <br />the expense of all of his neighbors. <br /> <br />Ordinance Interpretation~ Town conditions <br />building permit upon upgrade of existing street <br /> <br />Developer argues that town misinterpreted ordinance when <br />conditioning permit <br /> <br />Citation: Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 80, 946 A.2d <br />408 (Me. 2008) <br /> <br />MAINE (05/08/08) -c Jade Realty Corporation sought to develop <br />property in the town. As part of its development proposal, Jade Realty <br />planned to build an access road to a subdivision. The proposed access <br />road would dead-end mto an existing public road, Boyce Road. The con- <br />nectiIig roads would form a capital letter "T" intersection. <br />The town's zoning ordinance provided that where a new access road <br />corinected to a public road, the "intersection" must comply with town <br />street design and construction standards. Specifically, the ordinance pro- <br />vided that "nonew access street or road ... shall be permitted ... [where <br />the] existing public street do[es] not meet current town street design and <br />construction standards at the intersection ...." (emphasis added). Those <br />standards required all streets to be designed to certain specifications <br />based on their classification as arterial, collector or minor. Boyce Road <br />did not meet those standards. <br />The town's Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) interpreted "intersec- <br />tion" in the zoning ordinance as meaning the line where the access road <br />and Boyce Road met. The CEO determined that the ordinance required <br />that only the access road meet town standards. <br />The town's Board of Appeals (the Board) concluded otherwise. The <br />Board interpreted "intersection" in the zoning ordinance as meaning an <br />imaginary rectangle representing the area of overlap represented by con- <br />tinuing the access road across Boyce Road to its far side. The Board deter- <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />i. <br />, <br /> <br />75.' <br />