Opinion ID: 2786684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mobile Home Parks Overlay Zone

Text: [¶16] Fitanides argues that the Planning Board erred by failing to issue a conditional use permit for the MHP Overlay zone. “Whether a proposed use falls 4 Fitanides argues that delegating authority for approving minor changes to the City Planner deprives abutters and other interested parties of an opportunity to be heard regarding those changes. Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(1) (2014), however, every zoning board of appeals “shall hear appeals from any action or failure to act of the official or board responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinance, unless only a direct appeal to the Superior Court has been provided by municipal ordinance.” That provision suggests that Fitanides could appeal the City Planner’s decision to the ZBA and thus have an opportunity to be heard. 10 within the terms of a zoning ordinance is a question of law that we review de novo.” Lane Const. Corp. v. Town of Washington, 2008 ME 45, ¶ 13, 942 A.2d 1202. [¶17] The relevant section of the Saco Zoning Ordinance provides: “Once a mobile home park is approved by the Planning Board, the uses in the parks are limited to the following permitted and conditional uses . . . .” Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 410-18 (May 9, 1990). This language clearly demonstrates that the MHP Overlay district does not apply before a mobile home park has been approved for construction. Because no park was ever approved for the proposed site of the disc-golf course, the property was not subject to the requirements of the MHP Overlay district. [¶18] This construction of the Ordinance is further supported by the provision allowing property approved for use as a mobile home park to be converted to other uses, including uses that would be conditional or prohibited in the MHP Overlay district. See Saco, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 704-1 (May 9, 1990). That provision would not make sense if land in the MHP Overlay district remained subject to those restrictions even if a mobile home park did not exist there. Moreover, if the MHP Overlay restrictions always applied to land in the district, even where mobile home parks had not been approved, it would be illogical to include that same land in the B-2a and B-6 districts. See Adams v. 11 Town of Brunswick, 2010 ME 7, ¶ 11, 987 A.2d 502 (stating that “[t]he provisions of the Ordinance should be construed harmoniously” (quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, we hold that the Planning Board did not err by failing to apply the restrictions of the MHP Overlay to the McClellans’ project.