D'Alessandro v. Town of Harpswell
2012 ME 89
| Me. | 2012Background
- D’Alessandros own a shoreline lot in Harpswell, with fee ownership of a 40-foot strip burdened by an easement for shore access in the subdivision.
- Two shore access points exist in the subdivision; the D’Alessandros’ access point is within their own land burdened by the easement, the other lies over 400 feet away at a different location.
- An undeveloped path and a ladder previously provided access to the shore on the easement portion now owned by the D’Alessandros; the ladder was removed in 2009 with permission from the installer.
- In February 2010, multiple landowners applied for a permit for a seasonal stairway to access the shore over the D’Alessandros’ property; the DEP deemed the stairway temporary and exempt from permit.
- The Town issued a permit for the proposed stairs; the D’Alessandros appealed; a separate permit for the subdivision’s other shore access was issued with conditions; the Board denied the appeal on July 28, 2010; the Superior Court affirmed, and this Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- The core issue is whether the proposed stairs over the D’Alessandros’ land can be approved given the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance’s requirement of no reasonable access alternative on the property and whether the two access points constitute a single property for that purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two shore access points are part of a single property for purposes of the ordinance. | D’Alessandros contend both points are within a single easement property. | Harpswell argues the access points may be treated as part of the subdivision’s common property. | Remanded to determine if the two access points are part of the same property. |
| Whether the Board erred by not determining if a no reasonable access alternative exists on the property. | D’Alessandros claim the Board failed to apply the standard and show no reasonable access alternative. | Board asserted location was reasonable but did not address the no-alternative requirement. | Remand to require explicit findings applying the no reasonable access alternative standard. |
| What standard of review applies to the Board’s decision on the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance interpretation. | De novo review for errors of law; vacate for proper findings on no alternative requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunlop v. Town of Westport Island, 37 A.3d 300 (Me. 2012) (direct review of a municipal decision for legal error when appropriate)
- Bizier v. Town of Turner, 32 A.3d 1048 (Me. 2011) (de novo review for errors of law on ordinance interpretation)
- Aydelott v. City of Portland, 990 A.2d 1024 (Me. 2010) (plain meaning and reasonableness in interpreting ordinances)
- Chase v. Eastman, 563 A.2d 1099 (Me. 1989) (purchasers obtain easement rights by subdivision plan)
- Alexander v. Fairway Villas, Inc., 719 A.2d 103 (Me. 1998) (recognizes easement rights in subdivision contexts)