01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Z.B. December 10, 2004 -- Page 7 DE CISION: A filmed. The parkjng area had to be included in calculat!ng lot coverage. While interpreting the zoning ordinances, the court focused on a rule of construction that stated, "the express mention of one thing implied the exclusion of another." In the area-and-bulk-regulations table in the village's codified ordi- ' nances, the village specified with an asterisk which zoning districts excluded the parking lot area when determining their lot coverage, thereby allowing these districts to exceed the lot coverage limit if the excess was parking lot ai~ea. The ordinance language revealed the village's intent to allow businesses in these districts (retail trade, professional offices, hospitals, banks, and shop- ping malls) ~eater coverage of their lots for customer parking. In the area-and-bulk-regulations table, the multifamily residential zoning district's "maximum coverage in percent of lot" box was not marked with an asterisk. This demonstrates the village's intent tO include the parking area in calculating lot coverage for lots zoned multifamily residential, which do not need additional parking for customers. Because the parking lots were not specifically excluded, they had to be included in calculating lot coverage. To rule otherwise would render the identi- fying asterisk and its accompanying language superfluous. see- alxo: Village of Sauget v. Cohn, 610 N.E. 2d 104 (1993). Variance -- Board bases decisioh on historical'condition of neighborhood Finds lot not unique in original: subdivision scheme Citation: O'Toole v. City of Portland, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Cum-04-189 (2004) IMAINE (10/27/04) -- O'Toole owned two undeveloped lots in the City of Portland. O'Toote wanted to build a residence on the property. However, to do so, she would need a variance from the zoning code because the lot width was smaller than that allowed for residences. She applied for a variance, claiming her small lot size was a unique condition of her land. The City of Portland Zoning Board of Appeals denied O'To01e's variance request. The board found O'Toole's lot was not unique because the "general condition" of the neighborhood was one of "adjacent, un-built parcels, 30 feet wide." However. the board based this opinion on the manner in which the lots were divided in the 1920s, rather than looking at the present-day ownership and building patterns on the lots. O'Toole sued. arguing the board should not have based its decision on historical considerations, and the court ruled in her hvor. Tine city appealed. DECISION: Returned to lower court. Tlne court determined "general condition" referred to those conditions ex- ~.~ in,.z, .Lt '.'}~e time ,>r' the ,/ariance ~tpplicarion. 2004 2u~nlan %ollsnlng _"aoul}. Any ?.proouctjon ;s oronibllea. ,--or nore ,ntormalion p~ease :;mi :6i7'~ 542-0048. gg