Opinion ID: 2372257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Setback Definition

Text: The Macks' cross-appeal presents the question whether the Board and the Superior Court erred in deciding that the proposed house would not meet the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The required setback is fifty feet for the residence and thirty feet for detached improvements, such as the proposed driveway. Cape Elizabeth, Me., Zoning Ordinance § 19-3-6(i)(2). Setback is defined in subsection 19-3-6(i) of the zoning ordinance, in pertinent part, as the shortest horizontal distance from the foundation, sills or other supports of a building or other structure, or from the edge of the improved area of any other improvement, to ... the top of the bank, beach, cliff or other `normal high water mark' of any salt water body.... Normal high water mark of coastal waters is defined in subsection 19-1-3(t) of the ordinance as [t]hat line on the shore of tidal waters which is the apparent extreme limit of the effect of the tides, i.e., the top of the bank, cliff, or beach above high tide. The parties disagree as to the proper interpretation of the term normal high water mark as applied to Trundy Point. The Board accepted the town building inspector's interpretation of the term as that line upon which the extreme limit of the effect of the tide is visually recognizable. The building inspector located the line on the southeasterly side of Trundy Point as a line of vegetation, beyond which the topography is characterized by jagged ledge and small pools. For the sheltered, northwesterly side of Trundy Point, he noted that the apparent extreme limit of the effect of the tide is less readily apparent due to the variable slopes and vegetation, but it is clearly located inland 5 to 15 feet from the mean high tide line. The line on the northwesterly side was about sixteen vertical feet lower than the line on the exposed southeasterly side. The Macks and their geologist, on the other hand, interpret the normal high-water mark as the exact still-water level of the extreme limit of the tide itself, not including the effect of waves and ocean spray. The record contains competent evidence that the building inspector properly determined the normal high water mark, as interpreted by the Board, and that the resulting measurements yield insufficient setbacks for the Macks' project. Thus, the question is whether, as a matter of law, the Board interpreted the ordinance correctly. [3] The definitions in the ordinance of setback and normal high water mark of coastal waters are somewhat confusing. The setback definition implies that the top of the bank, beach or cliff may be, depending on the particular site, the normal high-water mark; however, it plainly contemplates other normal high-water marks. The definition of normal high water mark begins with a general definition ([t]hat line on the shore of tidal waters which is the apparent extreme limit of the effect of the tides) and ends with what are obviously intended to be three examples (the top of the bank, cliff or beach above high tide). [4] Nevertheless, the Board properly interpreted the definition of normal high-water mark by taking into account the effect of the tides beyond the high-tide level of the water itself. The ordinance specifically refers to the extreme limit of the effect of the tides. The definition of normal high water mark also includes the top of the bank, cliff or beach above high tide. Thus, the ordinance contemplates some terrain above the high-tide level that is still within the effect of the tides. In short, we affirm the Board's and the Superior Court's decision that the proposed house would violate the setback requirements.