Court Opinion

ID: 9694639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:49:33.249977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:04.136519
License: Public Domain

ALEXANDER, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 19] I respectfully dissent. The Court’s opinion correctly outlines the statutes and ordinances that govern this case. As the Court notes, we review the interpretation of ordinances de novo. In that review, we construe the words of an ordinance according to their plain meaning, looking to both the objectives sought by the ordinance and the structure of the ordinance as a whole. Gerald v. Town of York, 589 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Me.1991). Under the Phippsburg ordinance, the Gen-sheimers’ occupancy and use of their home is a grandfathered, non-conforming use, and thus, a permitted use under the ordi*1173nance. We held that such a grandfathered, non-conforming use was a permitted use in Gerald, 589 A.2d at 1273-75. Because the Gensheimers’ home is a permitted use, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that the driveway the Gen-sheimers propose to construct was appropriate to provide access to their permitted use within the Resource Protection District. I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.