Laserfiche WebLink
December 10, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin <br />as spot zoning" because the granting of a variance does not involve <br />a zone change but is permitted when certain conditions exist. There- <br />fore, said the court, the proper question was not whether the variance <br />was "spot zoning," but whether the Board acted within its scope and <br />power under the applicable zoning ordinances. Connected to that was <br />whether substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to grant <br />the variance. <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court rejected (without much explana- <br />tion) Memphis Stone's argument that "unnecessary hardship" takes <br />into account the public need. Instead, said the court, the focus should <br />be on whether there is a "public detriment" to the granting of the re- <br />quested variance. <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that some other jurisdic- <br />tions view the terms "practical difficulty" and "unnecessary hardship" <br />as interchangeable. <br />Standing—Landowner, Seeking Denial of <br />pp <br />Neighbor's Permit A lication, Appeals Decision <br />Denying Permit <br />Permit applicant contends landowner lacked standing to <br />bring such appeal because it had no particularized injury <br />Citation: Witham Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2011 <br />ME 104, 2011 WL 5187954 (Me. 2011) <br />MMNE (11/01/11)—This case addressed the issues of whether: (1) a <br />neighboring landowner who appeared before a municipal zoning board <br />of appeals through its attorney sufficiently appeared before the board so <br />as to provide it with standing to challenge the board's decision to issue <br />a permit; and (2) whether a neighboring landowner's claimed injury from <br />findings that an applicant complied with some, but not all, criteria neces- <br />sary for a permit had a particularized injury sufficient to provide standing <br />to appeal from the decision denying the application for a permit which <br />was the relief the neighboring landowner was seeking. <br />The B ackground/Facts: In 2009, North South Corporation ( "North <br />South ") applied to the Planning Board of the town of Bar Harbor (the <br />"Town ") for a permit to construct a hotel. The Planning Board denied <br />North South's application on the single ground that it exceeded the ap- <br />plicable ordinance height limitations; the Planning Board found that the <br />proposed hotel complied with ordinance requirements in all other respects. <br />6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />