Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Holland appealed to the city's Land Use Board of Appeals, saying the city misinterpreted its own policies. After a board hearing, but before its decision, an amended state statute becarme effective. The amendment stated that cities could not base limited- land-use decisions on comprehensive-plan provisions unless they incorpor- ated .the provisions into their land-use regulations. Without any mention of the new statute, the board affirmed the city's decision. Holland appealed to court. He said the amended state statute prevented the city from using its comprehensive plan as a basis for its decision. The city said the new amendment didn't apply to Holland's case because the city's decision came before the amendment. The court sent the case back to the board to determine whether the statute applied. The city appealed. It said the board did not have to decide the statute's applicability because the question was a legal -- not factual -- one. DECISION: Decision set aside; case sent back to the lower court. The lower court improperly delegated the statute-applicability question to the board. The board had no special expertise that would contribute to a correct result. The courts would not have to abide by the board's decision regarding the amendment's retroactivity. It was a legal question. The lower court's deci- sion was set aside, and the case was sent back to it for further proceedings. Holland v. City of Cannon Beach, 905 P. 2d 838 (199_5). Hay v. Department of Transportation, 719 P. 2d $60 (1986). Appeal -- Neighbor claims lumber company's permits are inappropriate Herrick v. Town of Mechanic Falls, 673 A.2d 1348 (Maine) 1996 From 1947, Parent Lumber Co. operated a sawmill on property it owned in the town of Mechanic Falls, Maine. In 1964, the town adopted its first zoning ordinance. The ordinance placed the company's property in a rural zone. Between 1984 and 1991, the town issued the company permits to'build a new sawmill, a "pole building," a garage and two sheds. Herrick owned property, also in the rural zone and along the same road as the company. In 1992, she asked the town's code-enforcement officer to revoke the building permits, order the company to stop using the new structures, and order the company to either remove the structures or use them for something that conformed with the ordinance. The officer refused her request. The offi- cer said the company's activity was a legal nonconforming use, and the build- ings were accessory to that use. Herrick appealed the officer's decision to the town's Zoning Board of AppealS, but did not ask the board to make specific findings. The board decicted the company's activity was permitted as either an agricultural use or a lawful expansion of a legal nonconforming use. The board did not make any specific findings of fact. The record of its proceedings had no evidence about the company's exact operations at any point in time.