The opinion
35 SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF MAINE oe OS
ee etl CIVIL ACTION
CUMBERLAND, ss
one -\, snq DOCKET NO. POR-AP-00-009
Jax 25 AN OZ yap Crs W/o 8.
MARK SANBORN, et al,
Plaintiffs
Vv. DECISION AND ORDER
TOWN OF GRAY, et al,
Defendants
The plaintiffs appeal the decision of the Town of Gray Zoning Board of
Appeals (ZBA), in which the ZBA granted defendant Sullivan’s appeal and variance
request. For the following reasons, the decision of the ZBA is reversed.’
Defendant Sullivan owns property in the Shoreland Zone of Gray. In 1987,
defendant Sullivan erected a shed on the property but did not acquire a building
permit. The Ordinance in effect in 1987 required a 75-foot setback from the high
water line of a body of water and a building permit for any principal or accessory
structure. See Record, Ex. H.
In 1999, the Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Gray sent a notice of
violation to defendant Sullivan and informed defendant Sullivan that the shed on
his property was in violation of the Town of Gray Building Code and the Town of
Gray Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. See Record, Ex. B. Defendant Sullivan wrote to
the Code Enforcement Officer and requested that the town grant him a variance so
1 The defendants did not file a brief.
that the shed could remain on defendant Sullivan’s property. See Record, Ex. C.
Defendant Sullivan also applied to the ZBA for a variance. See Record, Ex. A. After
two hearings, the ZBA voted in favor of a motion to “grant the appeal of the
decision of the C.E.O.” See Record, Ex. E. The chairman of the ZBA also signed a
“Certificate of Zoning Variance Approval,” which provided “Variance and
Conditions of Variance: to grant appeal of the decision of the C.E.O.” See Record,
Ex. F.
There is no evidence in the record to support the grant of a variance. See
Record, Ex. D at 5-6; Record, Ex. E; Record, Ex. G at 36; Record, Attachment 1 at 86-87;
Goldstein v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 66, J 4, 728 A.2d 164, 165. There is no
evidence in the record to support a finding, if made, that the shed was a non-
conforming structure and not subject to the setback requirements of the ordinance.
See Record, Ex. B; Record, Ex. D at 5-6; Record, Ex. E; Record, Ex. G at 4; Record, Ex. H,
{1i; Record, Attachment i at 83.
The entry is
The Decision of the Town of Gray Zoning Board of
Appeals is REVERSED.
Date: January 24, 2002
Nancy Mills, V
Chief Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed 94-31-00
Action APPEAL - 80(b)
MARK SANBORN
JOHN GOOSETREY
GERALD GRANT
RONALD NORTON
PAMELA WILKINSON
Plaintiff’s Attorney
WILLIAM H. DALE, ESQ.
NATALIE L. BURNS, ESQ.
P.O. BOX 4510
PORTLAND, MAINE 04112
CUMBERLAND
County
Docket No. AP-00-009
THE TOWN OF GRAY
THOMAS REINSBOROUGH
JAMES A. SULLIVAN
Defendant’s Attorney
KEVIN GRIMES, ESQ. (Sullivan)
82 PORTLAND ROAD
KENNEBUNK, MAINE 04043