Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 12 <br /> <br />There was also no indication that the reintroduction of alcohol at <br />the business would be damaging to the surrounding are, as the restau- <br />rant had sold alcohol for many years previously Vitithout an adverse <br />impact on the neighborhood. Finally, Parks was not suggesting any <br />structural or other major changes to the facility. The appeals court <br />found no expansion of the nonconforming use. <br />The decision of the lower court was reversed. The case was sent <br />back to the lower court with the order for the city to issue a liquor <br />license to Parks.' <br /> <br />See also: City of Central City v. Knowlton, 265 N. W.2d 749 (Iowa 1978). <br /> <br />See also: Perkins v. Madison County Livestock & FaiT Ass'n, 613 <br />N. W.2d 264 (Iowa 2000). <br /> <br />Jurisdiction-Homeowner brings challenge to shoreland <br />ordinance before zoning board of appeals <br /> <br />Court claims board does not have jurisdiction <br /> <br />Citation: Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, 2007 WL <br />1438793 (Me. 2007) <br /> <br />MAINE (05/17/07)-Sanborn and Anderson owned abutting parcels <br />of land in the town of Sebago. Anderson applied to the town's plan- <br />ning board for approval to demolish a trailer on his property and re- <br />place it with a two-story house. After a hearing, the board approved <br />Anderson's application. Sanborn appealed the decision to the zoning <br />board of appeals (ZBA), but the appeal was denied. <br />Anderson later applied for and received the necessary buildi..tJ.g per- <br />mit to begin construction on the home from the code enforcement of- <br />ficer. Sanborn appealed to the ZBA again, challenging the issuance of <br />the building permit on the grounds that the proposed house violated <br />the building and shoreland zoning ordinances. Specifically, Sanborn <br />claimed that the septic system plan violated both ordinances, site plan <br />measurements were not accurate, the required setback from the road <br />was not met, and too many trees had been removed. <br />After a hearing, the ZBA denied the appeal unanimously. It found <br />that the plan had been modified to meet some of the concerns raised <br />in the appeal, and that the code enforcement officer had monitored the <br />project with respect to its conformity with the building and shoreline <br />ordinances. With regard to the setback issue, the ZBA only stated that <br />the location of the road that bordered Anderson's property "has never <br />legally been determined." <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />105 <br />