# Morse v. City of Biddeford

> Superior Court of Maine · May 10, 2002

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807521

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** May 10, 2002
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Paul A. Fritzsche
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807521

## Opinion text

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION

YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-01-061
PAE -YoR~ s/lopore

HENRY H. MORSE,
HARL L. ADAMS and
NECIA C. ADAMS,

Plaintiff .
anuii's DONALD L. GARSRECHT
ORDER LAW LIBRARY
Vv. AND
DECISION MAY 1'°7 2002
CITY OF BIDDEFORD,

ROBERT R. WATSON and
NANCY H. WATSON,

Defendants

The plaintiffs are owners of land that abuts Hutchins Drive, a private way, in
Biddeford and they have appealed from a decision of the Biddeford Board of Zoning
Appeals which on September 17, 2001 denied their administrative appeal from a
decision of the Biddeford Planning Board. The Board of Zoning Appeals decision is
very brief and contains little analysis.

Robert R. and Nancy Watson own a larger parcel of land that has its primary
frontage on Oak Ridge Road with about 104 feet of frontage on Hutchins Drive. In
order to comply with Biddeford land use requirements requiring road frontage, they
proposed to build a short new way called Watson Drive on the generally south side
of a portion of their property which borders the property of Henry Morse and the

Readys. Watson Drive would connect with Hutchins Drive which would lead to

Oak Ridge Road.
The procedural history of the case is somewhat confusing as the parties either
failed to present evidence to the Boards or failed to raise some of their current issues
before the Boards.

The first question presented on appeal is whether the Watsons have any
remaining interest in Hutchins Drive or any remaining right to use it. The
Watsons at the Planning Board level said that they did but presented little evidence
to support the claim. At least one of the neighbors said that they did not. The
Planning Board apparently assumed that the Watsons did, but its notice of decision
of June 28, 2001 never mentioned the issue.

When the dispute got before the Board of Zoning Appeals on the plaintiffs’
administrative appeal, the plaintiffs came with an attorney who presented the
analysis of a different attorney, which concluded that the Watsons had no right to
use the portions of Hutchins Drive closest to Oak Ridge Road, thus denying them
any meaningful frontage. The Board of Zoning Appeals, which only had three of its
members present and voting, also ignored the issue.

‘Based on the evidence presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
could not have concluded that the Watsons had the right to use Hutchins Drive as it
bisected the Morse property and went alongside a portion of the Adams property.
Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the decisions of the Board of Zoning -
Appeals and the Planning Board must be reversed.

In the event that the matter returns to either Board, the Boards are reminded

of the requirements from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that more detailed
findings of fact be made in order to allow meaningful judicial review. See Christian
Fellowship & Renewal Center v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, 910/15, 769 A.2d
834, 837-9 and Chapel Road Associates, L.L.C. v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178
(December 27, 2001). Additionally, the Boards may wish to consider what rights the
Watsons have on Hutchins Drive, how many families abut Hutchins Drive,
whether the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeals is the proper Board to
grant any requested waivers from road construction standards and whether any
such waivers, if they can be granted, should be granted.
The entry is:

Judgment for the plaintiffs. Decisions of the Biddeford
Board of Zoning Appeals and Biddeford Planning Board

reversed.
Dated: May 10, 2002
aut b Zales
PLAINTIFF: (Fe L-
PAUL W CADIGAN ESQ Paul A. Fritzsche !
PO BOX 116 Justice, Superior Court

KENNEBUNK ME 04043

DEFENDANT CITY OF BIDDEFORD
HARRY B CENTER II ESQ

SMITH ELLIOTT SMITH & GARMEY
PO BOX 1179

SACO ME 04072

DEFENDANTS ROBERT & NANCY WATSON
JAMES L AUDIFFRED ESQ

PO BOX 1005

SACO ME? 04072 ©

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807521. Public record. Not legal advice.