Town of Vassalboro v. Barnett
13 A.3d 784
Me.2011Background
- Barnett sought a ten-lot subdivision along Route 201; roadwork was underway prior to final approval.
- Board accepted application as complete but later learned missing entity ownership for roads and wells required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
- MDOT highway entrance permit was submitted with the subdivision application, subject to three special conditions including exclusive entrance and paving shoulders.
- Town filed a Rule 80K land use complaint alleging six violations of town ordinances and MDOT requirements.
- District Court found all six violations proven and imposed a civil penalty and attorney fees against Barnett.
- Barnett appeals asserting errors in ordinance interpretation and statutory preemption by MDOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDOT permit enforcement authority | Barnett claims Town lacked authority to enforce permit conditions. | Barnett argues MDOT preempts enforcement; Town cannot enforce permit terms. | Town may enforce through 80K action; not preempted. |
| Road classification and mobile home park exemption | Road must comply with private major road standards; park status governs applicability. | Subdivision is a mobile home park and exempt from some standards under 30-A M.R.S. § 4358(3)(F). | Subdivision not a mobile home park; standards applicable. |
| Legal entity requirement for common-use facilities | Developer must vest ownership in a legal entity prior to final approval. | Board oversight forecloses enforcement; no prejudice from lacking entity at approval. | Ordinance requires both submission and performance; violation established; prejudice irrelevant. |
| Permits for mobile home occupancy and topsoil sale | Permits were required for mobile home placement and commercial topsoil activity. | No argument presented that permits were unnecessary. | Findings supported; violations established. |
| Excessive removal and sale of topsoil | Sales exceeded necessary surplus for subdivision. | Object to interpretation of surplus. | Record supports violation; proper interpretation upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106 (Me. 2010) (statutory and ordinance interpretation; de novo review with deference to fact-finding)
- State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125 (Me. 2010) (clarifies approach to statutory interpretation in state/federal contexts)
- Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 2009 ME 107 (Me. 2009) (court as sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010) (interpreting legislative intent in statutory preemption context)
- Hafford v. Hafford, 2010 ME 128 (Me. 2010) (clear error standard for factual findings under Rule 80K)