Opinion ID: 2555013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Entity

Text: [¶ 16] In a section entitled Submission of the Final Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance requires that when common-use systems such as wells and roads are part of a subdivision, the developer shall vest ownership of each of these areas individually or collectively in a legal entity established under Maine law. Vassalboro, Me., Subdivision Ordinance 16. One share in the entity must then be conveyed with each lot in the subdivision that is conveyed. Id. The Ordinance goes on to state that [p]rior to obtaining final approval from the Planning Board, the developer must show evidence that this entity has been created according to the provisions specified. Id. [¶ 17] Barnett admits that he did not fulfill this requirement, but argues that because the Board apparently overlooked it when it accepted his application as complete, it is now unenforceable. The trial court found a violation notwithstanding the Board's oversight upon finding that Barnett suffered no prejudice. We examine an ordinance for its plain meaning and construe its terms reasonably in light of the purposes and objectives of the ordinance and its general structure. Rudolph, 2010 ME 106, ¶ 9, 8 A.3d at 686 (quotation marks omitted). Read in that light, the provision of the Ordinance at issue contains both a performance requirement (the developer shall vest ownership) and an application submission requirement (the developer must show evidence). Vassalboro, Me., Subdivision Ordinance 16. We agree with Barnett when he asserts that [a] submission requirement is distinguishable and different from a performance standard. Contrary to the thrust of his argument, however, Barnett was not cited in the land use complaint for failing to show evidence to the Board that he created the required legal entity; he was cited for not creating the entity at all. [¶ 18] Furthermore, the record supports the court's finding that Barnett suffered no prejudice as a result of being required to form the necessary legal entity after the subdivision was approved, rather than before the Board acted on his application. Barnett received notice of the violation in November 2008 and could have formed the required legal entity prior to the Town's filing of the amended land use complaint in March 2009, thus avoiding any civil penalty. Moreover, the Town did not seek to revoke or restrict Barnett's original permit or alter the subdivision as physically constructed; [4] rather, it sought to enforce an existing provision of the Ordinance that required only administrative action by Barnett. [5]