Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

314 Page 4 -- April 10, 2003 The PoLders contended that when the subdivision plan was first approved, there were no maximum coverage regulations. They also argued their property was exempt from subsequent changes in the town zoning regulations. The PoLders appealed the zoning enforcement officer's decision. They ap- peared before the zoning board of appeals, pointing to a relevant statute which provided, "No lot or lots shown on a subdivision plan for residential property which has been approved, prior to the effective date of such change, by the planning commission of such town, city or borough, or other body exercising the powers of such commission, and filed or recorded with the town clerk, shall be required to conform to such change." The board contended that this statute was written for the benefit of builders and developers, not home owners. The board also opined that the statute ap- plied to setback requirements and minimum lot dimensions but not to coverage requirements in question, as in this case. The board denied the appeal. The Poitiers appealed to the lower court, which dismissed the appeal. The Poiriers appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The permit should have been ~anted. The court noted the law in question applied to any plan "which has been 'approved, prior to the effective date of such change." The subdivision plan t'ded and approved in 1954 placed the PoLders' lot within the scope of the statute and its attendant exemptions. "Zoning regulations ... cannot be construed to include or exclude by impli- cation what is not clearly within their express terms." The impetus for the statute might have been for builders and developers, but that did not exclude property owners such as the PoLders from benefiting from the legislation. Citation: Poirier v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of W~Iton, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 22063 (2003). see also: Reynolds v. United States, 292 U.S. 443, 54 S. Ct. 800, 78 L. Ed. 1353 (]934). see also: Schieffenlin & Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 479 A.2d ]]91 (1984). Signs 4 Town claims umbrellas with logos are signs Restaurant tom to remove signs or lose liquor license MA1NE (02/24/03) -- In July 2002, Demers, the code enforcement officer of the town of Kennebunk, visited Bartley's Dockside Restaurant, owned by B & B Coast,'d Enterprises Inc. (B & B)'to perform a sign inspection. The local sign ordinance limited the number of signs to three per single use. Demers advised Mr. Bardey that the restaurant was in violation and corrective