Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

Page 6--June 25, 2006 mother liquor store, Wine Sellers Spirits. At a public hearing, Kewalramani presented evidence that his store would not be visible from the other location due to the winding nature of the road between the two establishments, and he stated that the variance addressed his hardship of being a first-time business owner. The zoning board granted Kewalramani's request for a variance, and the owner of Wine Sellers Spirits appealed. DECISION: Board's decision overturned. The board abused its discretion in granting the variance. To determine whether a zoning board's decision to grant a variance should have been upheld, the court had to examine the board's records from the public hearing and analyze whether the board's action was arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of discretion. In general, a zoning board could grant a variance only under unusual or exceptional circumstances. In this case, Kewalramani argued that the court should uphold the yariance because the 25-foot difference was a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance and would have had no negative impact on the community. The court disageed. The purpose of the ordinance was to reduce criminal activity and risk of harm associated with the sale and use of alcohol. In addi- tion, if the court upheld the variance it would, in effect, be modifying or amend- lng the zoning ordinance, which fell under the power of the town council, not the zoning board. Kewalramani also argued that he would suffer a hardship if the court de- clined to grant a variance. A zoning board generally ~anted an exception from an ordinance if enforcing the regulation would have resulted in "exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship." Again, KewaLramani's argument failed. After examining the board's record, the court determined that Kewalrarnani did not identify a valid hardship. The court reversed the zoning board's decision and denied Kewakamani's request for a variance. see also: Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwallq 658 A.2d 559 (1995). see also: Appletree Land Development v. Zoning Hearing Board of York Township, 834 A.2d 1214 (2003). Nonconforming Use -- Water company more than doubles amount it pumps per day Board says this expansion requires permit Citation: Fryeburg Water Company v. Town of Fryeburg, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. 0xf-05-221 (2006) MAINE (03/30/06) -- Fryeburg Water Company (F'WC) was a public water utility operating in Maine and New Hampshire. On Aug. 6, 1997, FWC entered into an agreement to sell water to Pure Mountain Springs, LLC, for sale to third parties. In September 1997, FWC filed an application with the Town of Fryeburg © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (817) 542-0048. 184