stating that a statute is to be construed de novo, with an examination beyond its plain meaning “only if it is ambiguous” (quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that a statute is to be construed de novo, with an examination beyond its plain meaning “only if it is ambiguous” (quotation marks omitted)
- noting the consequences on appeal of ambiguities in a municipality’s decision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SILVER, J.,
with whom JABAR, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 30] I respectfully dissent. The Beckfords’ appeal was timely and the Court should reach the merits. As the Court recognizes, there are two relevant votes — one on January 25 and one on January 30. Although the ZBA voted to deny the Beckfords’ appeal on January 25, the minutes of that meeting explain that the ZBA also “decided that [it] would meet January 30, 2012 @ 7:00 pm for the Final Decision” on the issue. (Emphasis added.) “The ‘date of the vote on the original decision’ necessarily means the vote finally approving or disapproving an appeal or an application, not any of the many preliminary votes that may be taken in the course of consideration of an appeal or an application.” Car roll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶ 23 , 837 A.2d 148 (emphasis added). The finality of the vote is what matters here.
[¶ 31] The minutes make clear that the January 25 meeting was not the final vote. As the Superior Court reasoned, “there would have been no need to schedule the matter on January 30, 2012 for the ‘Final Decision’ if the final decision had already been made.” The final public vote did not occur until January 30, when the ZBA voted to “accept the presented copy, as written, of the Notice of Final Decision made by the Appeals Board on the appeal from Julie and Peter Beckford.” I would therefore find that the appeal was timely.