Jonathan R. Day v. Town of Phippsburg
110 A.3d 645
| Me. | 2015Background
- Two adjacent beachfront parcels in Phippsburg (lots 113 and 114) were vacant, undersized (<20,000 sq ft each), and commonly owned by Joseph Spear in 1989.
- The 1989 Phippsburg Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (PSZO) required 40,000 sq ft minimum for development, had a merger clause combining contiguous commonly owned undersized lots, and prohibited separating merged lots into nonconforming parcels.
- In 1991 Spear conveyed the lots separately (to Reece and Izzo), in apparent violation of the 1989 merger/separation restriction.
- In 2009 the Town amended the PSZO (retroactive effective date Jan 1, 1989) and a Town Board issued Reece a "Letter of No Enforcement" in 2012, treating both lots as lawful nonconforming lots.
- Day (abutter) sued for declaratory relief challenging lot 113’s grandfathered/developable status; the Superior Court granted summary judgment to Reece, reasoning that recombination in 2013 (when Reece purchased lot 114) restored grandfathered status.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment, holding that grandfathered status lost by unlawful separation is not restored by later recombination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a merged, grandfathered nonconforming lot whose grandfathered status was lost by an unlawful separation can regain that status when recombined under single ownership | Day: Loss of grandfathered status upon unlawful separation is permanent; recombination cannot revive it | Reece: Re-creating the identical lot by recombination restores the 1989 grandfathered status | Held: Loss is permanent; unlawful division terminates grandfathering and recombination does not resurrect it |
| Proper interpretation of “continue” in the PSZO’s grandfathering provision | Day: “Continue” requires uninterrupted existence of the merged lot since 1989 | Reece: “Continue” applies if the lot that existed in 1989 is identical to a lot existing now, allowing resurrection by recombination | Held: Ordinance construed to favor eliminating nonconformities; interruption (unlawful division) terminates grandfathering |
Key Cases Cited
- Farley v. Town of Lyman, 557 A.2d 197 (Me. 1989) (merger of undersized lots causes loss of individual grandfathered status; status cannot be revived after separation)
- Stewart v. Town of Durham, 451 A.2d 308 (Me. 1982) (grandfather clauses balance municipal interest in abolishing nonconformities against property owners’ vested expectations)
- Town of Windham v. Sprague, 219 A.2d 548 (Me. 1966) (zoning policy favors abolishing nonconformities as promptly as justice permits)
- Brackett v. Town of Rangeley, 831 A.2d 422 (Me. 2003) (zoning provisions restricting nonconformities are liberally construed; provisions allowing nonconformities are strictly construed)