The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
YORK, ss. _ DOCKET NO. AP-00-031
PAF -Yok -(0|2| 2000
ROBERT LOGAN, .
Plaintiff .
ORDER BONALD L. GARBRECHT
Vv. AND LAW Ut uamy
DECISION
Get 5 2
CITY OF BIDDEFORD, et al.,
Defendants
Robert Logan purchased real estate on both sides of Mile Stretch Road in
Biddeford pursuant to a deed of November 6, 1998 recorded at Book 9176, Page 276 of
the York County Registry of Deeds. The real estate on the southeasterly side of the
road is shown as lot 6 on Biddeford Tax Map 62, while the land on the northwesterly
side constitutes lots 29, 30, 31 and 32 on the same tax map. These last four lots are
now non-conforming sub-standard sized lots. A house is now located on lot 32 and
a garage is on lot 31. Lots 29 and 30 are vacant.
In December of 1999 the plaintiff filed an application with the Biddeford
Planning Board for a Shoreland Zoning Permit to build an additional home on lots
29 and 30. That request was denied in a notice of decision of January 7, 2000 because
the board found “.. . that lots 29, 30, 31 and 32 have merged and that the non-
conforming lots of record no longer exist.” The Biddeford Board of Zoning Appeals
denied the administrative appeal from the decision of the Planning Board. A timely
appeal was then filed with this Court.
The initial and dispositive issue is whether the November 6, 1998 deed
merged the lots regardless of whether the lots on the tax map would be merged
under the non-conforming lots provisions found at Section 12(E) of the Biddeford
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.
In examining the deed it appears that, just as property can be divided by deed,
property on the northwesterly side was combined. Lots 29, 30, 31 and 32 were
described as “A certain lot or parcel of land” and were described with a perimeter
description. While “. . . the use of the scrivener’s device of describing multiple
contiguous lots by their external perimeter” does not destroy “the independent
standing of the constituent parts.” See Bailey v. City of South Portland, 1998 Me. 50,
98, 707 A.2d 391, 3 the description as a certain lot or parcel of land, rather than lots or
parcels, does.
Since the deed itself has merged the formerly separate lots, the Planning
Board and Board of Zoning Appeals were correct in their decisions. Whether the
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance would merge any of the lots need not be decided as the
deed has produced the merger.
The entry is:
Decision of the Biddeford Board of Zoning Appeals is
affirmed.
Dated: October 3, 2000
INTIFF: Ralph Austin, Esq. (Sead fog ke
WOODMAN EDMANDS DANYLIK & AUSTIN
PO Box 468 Paul A. Fritzsche
Biddeford Me 04005 Justice, Superior Cont
'ENDANT: CITY OF BIDDEFORD INTERVENORS:
Harry Center, Esq. 2 MCGOVERNS AND FERGUSONS
) PO Box 1179 Bruce Read, Esq.
Saco Me 04072 HODSDON READ AND SHEPARD
ERVENOR: BIDDEFORD POOL IMPROVEMENT ASSOC. | 56 Portland Rd
Wayne Adams, Esq. Kennebunk Me 04043
PO Box 3030
Kennebunk Me 04043