Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

i. Ii ;: Ii li Ii \i j! d /1 Ii I' ,I 1'1 I' ]i Ii I! I: i I, i: I' I";. Ii Ii Ii I [I I I, l" I, i I I i, /' i" /) \ . {~'\ I: I j j I I I' i i. j i :( ) ~/ j" I .1 I Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2009\ Volume 3 I No.8 Western Maine Residents For Rural Living appealed the Board'l) de- cision to the town's Board of Appeals ("BOA"). Disagreeing with the Board, the BOA found that Poland Spring's proposed use was not an al- lowed "omitted use." The BOA said thisiwas because it did not meet one of the Ordinance's three criteria in that it would interfere with adjacent landowners' use and enjoyment of their property. The BOA vacated the Board's decision, and denied Poland Spring's requested permit. Thereafter, Poland Spring filed a complaint in court. It sought to re- verse the BOA's action. The court disagreed with the BOA. LiKe the Board, it found that Po- land Spring's proposed project, satisfied all of the Ordinance's require- ments for allowed omitted uses. The court also found that it satisfied a "non-intensive" standard found in the purpose section of the Ordinance governing rural residential districts. However, the court determined that the Board had failed to address a "low impact" requirement contained in the town's comprehensive plan. The court remanded Poland Spring's ap- plication back to the Board to consider that "low impact"staridard. Thereafter, the Board determined that Poland Spring's project was not a "low impact" business under the comprehensive plan, and denied the permit. Eventually, Poland Spring appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. It argued that the superior court erred when it ordered the Board to consider the comprehensive plan's additional criterion when reviewing the permit application. It asserted that while the town's comprehensive plan provided an overall land management strategy and guidance for the adoption of ordinances, only the Ordinance was regulatory. DECISION: Vacated; remanded for entry for judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that Poland Springs was only required to comply with the Ordinance. It did not have to also com- ply with the town's comprehensive plan. The court concluded that the superior court had erred in requiring the Board to consider an additional criterion beyond those set out in the Ordinance (i.e., one taken from the town's comprehensive plan). In so concluding, the court explained that comprehensive plans were not regulatory. This was made clear by the fact that legislative guidelines required a municipality's comprehensive plan to have an "implementa- tion strategy"-which included the adoption 'of land use ordinances. Thus, comprehensive plans and land use ordinances were complementa- ry, with different purposes. While comprehensive plans set out what was to be accomplished, ordinances set out concrete standards to ensure that the plan's objectives were realized. While comprehensive plans imposed obligations on towns, ordinances imposed measurable requirements on applicants. The court found that in this case, the town chose to imple- @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 33