Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/2009

Home

/\ i ) (-) \ ) '-J Zoning Bulletin August 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 15 of Route 144 and Ferry Road in the town. In .furtherance of the planned site improvements, the town's Board of Selectmen (the "Town") submit- ted an application to the town's Planning Board~ In its application, the Town proposed: improving the boat ramp; improving an access road to the site; and expanding the parking area at the site. The improvements were projected to increase daily trips to and from the site by thirty-six vehicles during the peak season. Paul. L. Nergaard and Michael E. Stern were both residents of the town. Their properties did not directly abut the site, nor were they within close proximity to the site. Nergaard and Stern both opposed the town's proposed improvements to the site. At Nergaard and Stern's re- quest, the Planning Board granted them party status. Nergaard and Stern expressed concern that the increased use of the site would "worsen traf- fic conditions and seriously endanger their safety" since they regularly travelled on Route 144 and had to pass the site. Eventually, the Planning Board approved the Town's site improve- ment project. Nergaard and Stern appealed to the town's Zonillg Board. The Zon- ing Board dismissed the appeal, finding Nergaard and Stern did not have standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the appeal). The town's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") allowed only "aggrieved parties" to appeal Planning Board decisions. An "aggrieved party" was defined as: "an owner of land whose property is directly or indirectly affected by the granting or denial of a permit or variance under [the] Ordinance; a person whose land abuts land for which a permit or variance has been granted; or any other person or group of person who have suffered par- ticularized injury as a result of granting or denial of such a permit or variance." The Zoning Board found that neither Nergaard nor Stern: (1) owned property abutting the site; or (2) claimed any "potential injury dif- ferent from that suffered by the general public traveling over Route 144." Nergaard and Stern appealed to the Superior Court. The court agreed with the Zoning Board that Nergaard and Stern lacked standing since neither owned property abutting the site or would sustain a per- sonalized injury. Nergaard and Stern appealed. They argued that they had standing to appeal to the Zoning Board because: (1) the Planning Board had granted them party status; and (2) each had demonstrated a particularized injury as a resident of the town who frequently drives by the site. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that Nergaard and Stern did not have standing to appeal to the Zoning Board. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 61