Opinion ID: 2202732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State and Local Subdivision Law

Text: The Superior Court denied plaintiffs' appeal regarding the State Subdivision Law without explanation. Initially, defendants seek to avoid the thrust of the appeal by challenging the validity of the adoption of the Town's Subdivision Standards. The current Subdivision Law, 30 M.R.S.A. § 4956(2)(B), states that a municipal body may, after a public hearing, adopt ... regulations governing subdivisions.... Defendants charge that before the Board could promulgate regulations under section 4956(2)(B), a public hearing had to be held, but no public hearing was held in this case and therefore the Board's adoption of the Subdivision Standards was invalid. The Planning Board adopted the regulations on May 4, 1972. At that time, section 4956(2) required neither a public hearing before adoption nor a Town meeting after adoption by the Planning Board for an effective subdivision regulation. See P.L.1971, c. 454. The Town's Subdivision Standards were adopted validly and are binding on the Town. The Board found the plan to be in compliance with the State Subdivision Law. The Subdivision Standards require the Board to consider a number of general requirements in reviewing subdivision applications, and the burden of proving that the requirements are met is on the proponent of the subdivision. The plot plan reveals that the subdivision apparently will fail to conform with the Subdivision Standards' requirements for minimum lot size, minimum number of connections with public streets, and street design and construction standards. Where strict compliance with the Subdivision Standards may result in extraordinary and unnecessary hardship or where there are special circumstances, the Board may vary the standards so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secure.... Standard 12.2 permits waiver of required improvements in the public interest if special circumstances exist. Standard 12.3 states that when granting variances and modifications, the Board shall require such conditions as ... will meet the objectives of the requirements so varied or modified. The Board's findings state that [n]o problems with traffic or traffic congestion have been shown to exist in the past and none are anticipated in the future with the BPCC's continued operation as proposed by the applicant. The Board concluded, therefore, that separate connections with the public highway are unnecessary. The Board also noted that no new road construction is proposed. Apparently, the Board considered the street design and construction standards to be applicable only to new road construction. The Board maintains a discrete silence on the plan's noncompliance with minimum frontage requirements on public streets and the water. The plan facially violates the frontage requirements, and no evidence exists that the Board waived those requirements. [1] The entry is: Judgment vacating approval of the subdivision plan affirmed. Judgment dismissing appeal on alleged violations of Shoreland Zoning Ordinance affirmed. Judgment denying appeal on alleged violations of State Subdivision Law reversed and remanded for entry of an order vacating the approval. All concurring.