Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

March 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin Use®Zoning board approves town's proposed use of property as permitted "municipal use" Neighbor contends proposed use may also be characterized as other, prohibited use, and argues that since both use categories may not be harmonized, use must be prohibited Citation: Estate of Robbins v. Town of Cumberland, 2017 ME 16, 2017 WL 370887 (Me. 2017) MAINE (01/26/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town's proposed development was permitted as a "municipal use" under the terms of the town's zoning ordinance. The Background/Facts: In 2014, the Town of Cumberland (the "Town") purchased property (the "Property") located in Cumberland. The Property was located in the Low Density Residential zoning district (the "LDR zone"). In the spring of 2015, the Town submitted to the Cumberland Planning Board (the "Board") an application for site plan review for a proposed development involving Property. The Town stated that the purpose of the development was "to provide low -impact passive recreation along the Casco Bay shoreline for the residents of Cumberland." Specifically, on the Property, the Town sought to construct public access walking trails, construct a parking lot, and relocate an existing bathhouse. The Town's Code Enforcement Officer (the "CEO") determined that the Town's proposed use was a "municipal use," which was permitted in the LDR zone. The Board agreed and approved the Town's application. Thereafter, the Estate of Merrill P. Robbins (the "Estate"), which owned land abutting the Property, appealed the decision. The Estate argued that the Town's proposed development actually amounted to an "outdoor recreational facility," which was not a permitted use in the LDR. The Town's Board of Adjustment and Appeals agreed with the CEO's inter- pretation and determined that the Town's proposed facility was permissible within the LDR zone as a "municipal use." The Estate appealed to the Superior Court. The court affirmed the CEO's interpretation and the Board's decision. It concluded that "the plain language of the ordinance" supported the finding that the Town's proposed use of the Property was for a "municipal use," permitted in the LDR zone. The Estate again appealed. The Estate contended that the Town's proposed use could be characterized as either "municipal use" or "outdoor recreational facility." The Town's zoning ordinance defined a "municipal use" as "[a]ny use or building maintained by the Town of Cumberland." It defined an "out- door recreational facility," in pertinent part, as "[a] place designed and equipped primarily for the conduct of nonmotor- 8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters