Opinion ID: 2266295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Setback

Text: Strong first argues that because the seventy-five foot setback applies only to principal structures, and the court concluded that his deck was an accessory structure, the court should not have applied the setback to his deck. When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we directly review the record before the District Court for clear error in its findings of fact or application of the law. Town of Hartford v. Bryant, 645 A.2d 18, 19 (Me.1994). The pertinent portions of the zoning ordinance state: I. Principal Structure The structure in which the primary use of the lot is conducted. J. Accessory Structure A structure of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to that of the principal structure or the primary use to which the premises are devoted. Union, Me., Shoreland Zoning Ordinance § 13 (June 30, 1974). [2] Additionally, Section 11(M)(1) of the shoreland zoning ordinance states that the seventy-five foot setback requirement applies only to  all principal structures in the Resource Protection and Limited Residential-Recreational Districts. Union, Me., Shoreland Zoning Ordinance § 11(M)(1) (June 30, 1974) (emphasis added). Applying these provisions, the court concluded both that the deck was an accessory structure and that it had to be set back seventy-five feet to comply with an ordinance provision that is expressly applicable only to principal structures. As Strong points out, the court's application of the ordinance to Strong's deck is logically inconsistent. Nevertheless, we agree with, and, therefore, affirm, the court's ultimate conclusion that the setback must be applied to the Strong's deck. The proposed deck was directly joined to the house, i.e., the principal structure. Generally, accessory structures must be on the same lot as the principal building but they may not be attached to it. Additions made to a principal structure will not qualify as an accessory use. PATRICK J. ROHAN, 6 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS § 40A.07 (1995) (emphasis added). When the deck was joined to the house it became an extension and integral part of the principal structure and, therefore, must comply with setback requirements that apply to principal structures. See Yunker v. Means, 271 Or. 56, 530 P.2d 846, 847 (1975) (deck used for usual deck uses not an accessory structure for setback purposes). See also Daughters of St. Paul v. Zoning Bd., 17 Conn.App. 53, 549 A.2d 1076, 1083 (1988) (stating that physical separation is essential to identification of structure as an accessory structure). Thus, while we conclude that the court erred in characterizing the deck as an accessory structure, we affirm its ultimate conclusion that the seventy-five foot setback should be applied to the deck. See L. Ray Packing Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 469 A.2d 832, 834 (Me.1983) (where the legal reasoning of the court is incorrect, but its ultimate conclusion is correct in law, it must be sustained on appeal).