[¶ 1] Thе Town of Eliot appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) affirming the decision of its Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) to grant a building permit to Jade Realty Corрoration and vacating the decision of the Eliot Board of Appeals, which conditioned the permit upon upgrading Boyce Road to comply with the Town’s building stаndards. The Town argues that the Superior Court erred in its interpretation of the Town’s zoning ordinance. Specifically, it argues that'the court erred in ruling that because thе proposed access road conformed to town building standards, the intersection of the access road and Boyce Road therefore comрlied with town building standards. We agree and vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and affirm the judgment of the Board of Appeals.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] Jade Realty is a New Hampshire cоrporation operated by Edward and Joanne Fillmore. It owns property in Eliot, Maine, some of which has been developed but the majority of which remains undeveloped. Originally, the undeveloped portion of this property was divided into seventy lots; however, as a result of negotiations following a contemporaneous dispute with the Town, this was reduced to forty-eight lots. In seeking to develop this property, Jade Realty plans to build an access road to the subdivision. The proрosed access road would dead-end into Boyce Road in Eliot, forming a capital letter “T” intersection.
[¶ 3] In May 2006, Jade Realty filed for, and received, a permit to construct this access road. Prior to this, on June 14, 2005, the Town amended its zoning ordinance to provide that where a new access road connects to a public road, the inter
[¶ 4] In granting Jade Realty’s permit in May 2006, the CEO apparently interpreted “intersection” in the town ordinance to refer to the line where the access road and Boyce Road would meet, rather than an imaginary rectangle representing the area of overlap represented by continuing the access road across Boyce Road to its far side. The CEO’s interpretation required that only the access road meet town standards; Boyce Road itself would not have to be brought up to town standards.
[¶ 5] On June 19, 2006, several citizens of the town filed an appeal challenging the granting оf the permit.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 6] The amended ordinance reads:
[N]o new access street or road, whether public or рrivate, providing access to more than 14 house lots or dwelling units, shall be permitted or constructed if directly connected to any public street(s), which such existing public street(s) do not meet current town street design and construction standards at the intersection(s) of any such proposed access street or road and any suсh public street(s)....
Eliot, Me., Code § 45 — 406(c) (June 16, 2007). The Superior Court noted that there were two possible definitions of “intersection”: a line where the two roads meet; or the area of overlap where the two roads meet. It concluded that, in part because of this perceived ambiguity, the CEO’s interpretation was correct. On this basis, the court affirmed the CEO’s interpretation of “intersection,” meaning the line where the two roads met.
[¶ 7] The interpretation of a zoning ordinance presents a question of law that we review de novo. Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg,
[¶ 8] An ordinance may not be interpreted in such a way to read a provision out of existence or to render it surplusage. “Rules of statutory construction require zoning ordinances and subdivision standards to be interpreted ‘so as [not] to render a provision a surplusage.’” Bodack v. Town of Ogunquit,
[¶ 9] “We interpret [an] ordinance by first looking at the plain meaning of the language to give effеct to legislative intent.” Clarke v. Olsten Certified Healthcare Corp.,
[¶ 10] Both parties focus their argumеnts on the meaning of “intersection.” The term is not defined in the ordinance and the parties argue for different definitions.
[¶ 11] Notwithstanding the argument of the parties, the outcome of this appeal does not hinge on the meaning of “intersection.” Whether the intersection is a line or an area of overlap, Boyce Road must сomply with town standards for that length of the access road. “[N]o new access street or road ... shall be permitted ... [where the] existing public street[ ] do[es] not meеt current town street design and construction standards at the intersection ]....” Eliot, Me., Code § 45-406(c) (June 16, 2007) (emphasis added). Regardless of the meaning of “intersection,” Boyce Road does not mеet town standards where the access road would meet it.
[¶ 12] Further, Jade Realty’s argument, that Boyce Road need not be brought up to town standards at the intersectiоn because the ordinance simply requires that the access road be built to standard, must fail. To accept this argument would read the ordinance out of existеnce. Under this reading, the ordinance would not require anything not already required by town standards, as the access
The entry is:
Judgment of the Superior Court is vacated and the decision of the Board оf Appeals, dated July 28, 2006, is affirmed.
Notes
. It is unclear from the record whether Boyce Road is a minor road or a collector road. The distinction, however, is of no imрortance in this matter as the road would still not meet the pertinent standards required of collector roads.
. Count II, a due process claim, was dismissed and has not bеen appealed.
. Jade Realty points to the definition in the sixth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, arguing that it distinguishes between “X” intersections and "T” intersections. "As apрlied to a street or highway [the term] means the space occupied by two streets at the point where they cross each other.... ‘Intersection’ may alsо apply where street or highway runs into but without crossing another; e.g., a T intersection.” Black’s Law Dictionary 819 (6th ed. 1990).
This is too slender a basis for its argument to stand. First, the seventh edition does not make this distinction, only stating that it is a "place where two roads meet or form a junction.” Black's Law Dictionary 825 (7th ed. 1999). Second, the definition on which Jade Really places so much weight does not support its contention that the intersection is simply the line where the streets meet: that is not what the definition states.