Shackford & Gooch, Inc. v. Town of Kennebunk
486 A.2d 102, 1984 Me. LEXIS 876 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vertical addition to a structure that is already nonconforming due to setback requirements constitutes an expansion of the nonconformity that requires a variance. A municipality is not equitably estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance when a party relies on the unauthorized verbal assurances of a municipal officer that contradict the written requirements of the ordinance.
Facts:
- B. & B. Coastal Enterprises, Inc. operates Bartley’s Dockside Restaurant (Dockside) in a building considered a nonconforming structure because its setbacks do not meet the Kennebunk Zoning Ordinance requirements.
- In March 1982, Dockside applied for and received a written permit to build external stairs.
- At the same time, the Kennebunk building inspector gave Dockside verbal authorization to construct a deck on the restaurant's flat roof.
- The building inspector assured Dockside that a written building permit for the deck was not necessary.
- Dockside proceeded to construct the roof deck in reliance on the inspector's verbal assurance.
- Shackford & Gooch, Inc., the owner of an abutting property, saw the construction and petitioned the building inspector to stop the work, arguing a permit was required and the deck violated zoning ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kennebunk Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) initially ruled that Dockside could retain the deck based on a theory of estoppel.
- On review, the Superior Court (a trial court acting in an appellate capacity) found the Board's estoppel finding legally incorrect and remanded the case to the Board.
- On remand, the Board found the deck was an expansion of a nonconforming structure and denied Dockside's request for the necessary variances.
- Dockside sought review again, and the Superior Court reversed the Board, holding the deck was not an expansion and ordering the Board to issue a permit.
- Shackford & Gooch, Inc. (the opponents) appealed the second Superior Court decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court), and B. & B. Coastal Enterprises (Dockside) filed a cross-appeal on the estoppel issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the vertical addition of a roof deck to a building that is already a nonconforming structure due to its setbacks constitute an 'expansion' that requires a variance under the local zoning ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Glassman, Justice
Yes, the addition of a roof deck constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Any significant alteration to a nonconforming structure is considered an extension or expansion. The underlying policy of zoning is to gradually eliminate nonconforming uses, and permitting such additions as a matter of right, even if they do not increase the horizontal nonconformity, would offend this policy. The court further held that the Zoning Board was not equitably estopped from enforcing the ordinance. Dockside's reliance on the inspector's verbal permission was unreasonable because the ordinance explicitly requires a written permit for any alteration. Moreover, an unauthorized act by a municipal officer cannot prevent the municipality from enforcing its own ordinances.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that nonconforming uses are disfavored and that zoning ordinances restricting their expansion will be interpreted broadly. The court clarifies that an 'expansion' is not limited to horizontal encroachments but includes vertical additions as well, preventing property owners from intensifying a nonconforming use. Furthermore, the case sets a high bar for invoking equitable estoppel against a government entity, establishing that reliance on a municipal officer's verbal statements is unreasonable when a written ordinance prescribes a specific, contrary procedure. This protects the integrity of written laws and limits municipal liability for unauthorized actions of its employees.
