Opinion ID: 2555013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Highway Entrance

Text: [¶ 7] The Subdivision Ordinance performance standards include a requirement that [a]ny and all required permits from the Maine Department of Transportation shall be submitted to the Board before it approves a subdivision application. Vassalboro, Me., Subdivision Ordinance 22. The court found that although Barnett submitted an MDOT permit, he nonetheless violated the Ordinance because he had not fully complied with two of the permit's special conditions: (1) that the approved entrance be the only entrance to the subdivision; and (2) that Barnett pave two feet of both shoulders of Route 201 for 250 feet in each direction from the subdivision's entrance. The record establishes that Barnett received several notices of the violations from both MDOT and the Town. [¶ 8] Barnett does not challenge the Ordinance's requirement that he obtain an MDOT permit, rather he contends that the Town did not have the authority to enforce the conditions of the permit once it was issued because the enforcement function has been preempted by state law and reserved to MDOT. Accordingly, Barnett argues that he fully complied with the Ordinance when he submitted the permit with his subdivision application. We disagree. [¶ 9] By statute, [i]t is unlawful to construct or maintain any driveway, entrance or approach within the right-of-way of any state highway . . . without a written permit from the Department of Transportation. . . . 23 M.R.S. § 704 (2010). Although it is clear that MDOT has the sole authority to issue the required permit initially, nothing in section 704 reserves to MDOT the exclusive authority to enforce the permit once it has been issued. [2] To the contrary, the statute contemplates shared responsibility for the enforcement of highway entrance standards between MDOT and the municipality involved: The Department of Transportation is directed and municipalities are authorized to adopt rules and regulations for the design, location and construction of driveways, entrances and approaches on state highways . . . to adequately protect and promote the safety of the traveling public. . . . [3] 23 M.R.S. § 704(2) (emphasis added). [¶ 10] Furthermore, the Legislature has provided that a municipal official, in this case the CEO, may enforce local subdivision ordinances adopted pursuant to [statutory home rule authority]. 30-A M.R.S. § 4452(1), (5)(N) (2010). Under the Town's home rule authority, its Subdivision Ordinance is presumed to be valid unless it purports to exercise a power or function expressly denied to the Town by statute, or if enforcement of the Ordinance would frustrate the purpose of any state law. 30-A M.R.S. § 3001, (3) (2010). In this instance, the Town's enforcement of Barnett's MDOT permit requirements furthers, rather than frustrates, the purpose of 23 M.R.S. § 704, and so it is a valid exercise of the Town's home rule authority. Although MDOT could have taken enforcement action against Barnett if it chose, in enacting section 704 the Legislature did not intend to render the Town powerless to enforce MDOT-mandated highway safety standards affecting its residents. See Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24, ¶ 10, 990 A.2d 1028, 1032 (stating that where statutory construction is at issue, we construe a statute to give effect to legislative intent).