Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin "Ordinance"). More specifically, Wolfram contended that the proposed annex: exceeded the Ordinance's allowable expansion of a nonconforming structure; violated a section of the Ordinance that only allowed restoration or reconstruc- tion of a nonconforming structure for "cause other than the wilful act of the owner;" and violated a 20% lot coverage restriction applicable to guest houses. Wolfram also argued that his due process rights were violated by bias and ex parte communications —specifically emails between Nebo representatives and members of the Planning Board. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine rejected all of Wolfram's arguments, and concluded that the BOA had not erred when affirming the land use permits issued to Nebo. Further, the court concluded that Wolfram's due process rights were not violated. In reaching its conclusions, the court looked at the common meaning of the language of the Ordinance, and construed the Ordinance "as a whole" "in or- der to achieve a harmonious result." Section 2.5 of the Ordinance allowed enlargement of grandfathered nonconforming structures without a variance, so long as "the enlargement . . . contains no more than 33% of the ground area of the grandfathered structure." Wolfram had interpreted section 2.5 to limit the total expansion of all nonconforming structures on a lot to 33% of the ground area of a single nonconforming structure. He thus interpreted section 2.5 to require the Town to aggregate each expansion on the lot and to prohibit further expansion once that percentage, tied to a single nonconforming structure, had been reached. Wolfram had argued that because Nebo had already expanded the lodge, fur- ther expansion to the separate annex would, in the aggregate, exceed 33% of the original lodge's ground area, which was not permitted. The court found Wolfram's interpretation was "unsupported by the language of the Ordinance." The court found that the plain language of the Ordinance "clearly" permitted "any nonconforming structure to be expanded by up to 33% of the ground area of the previous structure." Thus, here, the court said that Nebo's two nonconforming structures —the annex and the lodge —could each be enlarged by up to 33% of the ground area of the structure that it replaced and comply with section 2.5. The court found that the annex expan- sion did not exceed 33% of the ground area of the structure that it replaced, the bungalow. The court also rejected Wolfram's argument that the annex expansion violated section 2.6 of the Ordinance, which provided that "[a]ny non- conforming use or structure which is hereafter damaged or destroyed by fire or cause other than the willful act of the owner of his agent, may be restored or reconstructed to its original dimensions, and used as before." Wolfram had interpreted section 2.6 to prohibit restoration or replacement of the bungalow/ annex —a "willfully demolished nonconforming structure." The court interpreted section 2.6 to not apply to a willful demolition for renovation purposes undertaken with municipal approval, particularly as expansion of a nonconforming structure was explicitly permitted by section 2.5. In other words, the court concluded that even though Nebo was willfully demolishing the bungalow to build an expanded annex, that did not violate section 2.6. 10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters