Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1996

Home

Page 6~--February 1996 z.g. DECISION: Affirmed. Crzones's plan was not a subdivision. The plan expressly said two lots were not buildable, so it did not represent a division of the land into two or more ")ors." The public's right not to be misled by endorsed recorded plans was protected by the depiction of two of the three parcels as landlocked and withouI frontage, with each clearly identified as "not a building lot." Tha board's endorsement would not mean the lots shown on the plan were builda~le. The lots remained subject to all pertinent regulatory provisions other than th~ subdivision control law. The endorsement would only allow the plan to be re~orded before the sale of the unbuildable parcels to the owners of abut- ting land. SubdiVision -- Owner Subdivides Lot Three Times Without Town's ApproVal To~ of Orrington v. Pease, 660 A.2d 919 (Maine) 1995 McLean oWned a parcel of land designated as Lot 90 in the town of Orringt~n, Maine. The town subdivision law prohibited the subdivision of a single l~t into three or more lots within a five-year period without town approval, but exempted conveyances made to abutting landowners. In 1~90 McLean subdivided Lot 90 in two; Pease acquired Lot 90C and Giffard 0cquired the new Lot 90. With~out getting the town's approval, Pease subdivided Lot 90C into Lots 90C and'~ 90D. He conveyed Lot 90D to Reed. Giffard subdivided LOt 90 into Lots 90 and 90E, conveying Lot 90E to Pease a~d his wife as joint tenants. In January 1991, Giffard conveyed Lot 90 to Peaseland his wife as joint tenants. With!n a period of about seven months, the original lot had been divided into fourlparcels. Pease owned Lot 90C alone, Pease and his wife owned Lots 90 and 9(~E, and the Reeds owned Lot 90D. None of the transactions were done with the town's approval. Peas~ applied for a subdivision permit for ail the lots. While the town con- sidered l~is application, Pease gave a bank a mortgage deed on the northern half of LOt 90. The town denied the permit because it felt the original Iot had been illegally subdivided three times. Peas~ then applied for a building permit to install a mobile home on the southern half of Lot 90. The town code enforcement officer granted the permit, but then r~voked it two weeks later after learning that the subdivision of Lot 90 was illegail. Pease installed the mobile home anyway. Albert began living in the mobile horae, although neither he nor Pease applied for a certificate of occupancy. The town filed a land use citation and sued Pease. The town asked for an order direr;ting Pease to remove the mobile home and its concrete base. After a hearing, the trial court found Pease violated the subdivision law and failed to get a certificate of occupancy for the mobile home. Pease ~ppealed, claiming the trial court incorrectly interpreted the subdivi- sion statu!e. The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision. Pease appealed to Maine's highest court.