Inhabitants of Town of Windham v. Sprague
Decision Date | 09 May 1966 |
Citation | 219 A.2d 548 |
Parties | INHABITANTS OF the TOWN OF WINDHAM v. Frank W. SPRAGUE. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Henry Steinfeld, Portland, for plaintiff.
Walter E. Foss, Portland, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, SULLIVAN, MARDEN and RUDMAN, JJ.
On appeal. The Town of Windham by this complaint seeks removal of a 'trailer' from land occupied by the defendant on the ground that it was placed there in violation of the ordinance regulating house trailers and house trailer parks in the Town of Windham.
The facts as stipulated by the parties are as follows:
'That the Town of Windham on March 17, 1962, duly adopted and enacted an ordinance entitled 'An Ordinance Regulating House Trailers and House Trailer Parks in the Town of Windham, Maine.'
'That on the same day and date the Town of Windham enacted an ordinance entitled 'The Building Code for the Town of Windham, Maine.'
'Both Ordinances were enacted at a duly called town meeting and were voted upon by a show of hands of those present.
'That the Building Inspector of the Town of Windham denied the application for the building permit; that upon the denial by the Building Inspector, the defendant appealed to the Appeals Board, who heard the said appeal on June 11, 1964, permission to move in the new trailer was further denied by the Appeals Board and the defendant was so notified by letter.
'That on July 24, 1964, the Selectmen of the Town of Windham sent to the defendant a notice to remove the new trailer within 7 days from the date of their notice; that the defendant has not removed the said trailer.
'Any reference to the word 'trailer' shall mean a trailer suitable for dwelling purposes.'
The Police Power Enabling Act is set forth in 30 M.R.S.A. § 2151 (Formerly R.S.1954, Ch. 90-A, § 3). The pertinent sections read as follows:
'1. General.
'(1) Any building, structure, trailer parking facility or equipment existing in violation of an ordinance authorized by this subsection is a nuisance.'
The ordinance provisions pertinent to this case are:
'(a) After passage of this ordinance, house trailers will be restricted to approved trailer parks.
'(b) House trailers now on location will be allowed to remain, but if moved, they cannot be reestablished except in approved trailer parks.'
The issues as stipulated by the parties are:
'(1) Whether or not the placing of this new trailer and occupying this new trailer after being turned down by the Building Inspector on a request for a building permit and by further appeal to the Appeals Board constitutes a violation of the duly enacted trailer ordinance and building code.
'(2) Whether or not a show of hands is sufficient to enact a town ordinance.'
The Enabling Act does not contain any provision as to the manner of voting, and a vote by written ballot is not required. 30 M.R.S.A. § 2054 (Formerly R.S.1954, Ch. 90-A § 34 provides:
Also see 30 M.R.S.A. § 2061 (Formerly R.S.1954, Ch. 90-As 37) Secret Ballot.
The vote, by a show of hands, not being immediately questioned, had passage, and is valid.
It is to be noted that the stipulation does not attack the Enabling Act not the Ordinance enacted thereunder, and presumptively is constitutional. York Harbor Village Corporation v. Libby, 126 Me. 537, 542, 140 A. 382; Wright v. Michaud et al., 160 Me. 164, 177, 200 A.2d 543.
In Sitgreaves v. Board of Adjustment, 136 N.J.L. 21, 54 A.2d 451, 455 the court held: That the voluntary demolition of a tool shed used by the owner as a garage for the purpose of erecting a larger two-car garage constituted an abandonment of a nonconforming use, depriving the owner of a continuation of such use. See Barbarisi v. Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J.Super. 11, 103 A.2d 164; Hay v. Board of Adjustment of Fort Lee, 37 N.J.Super. 461, 117 A.2d 650; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing, 224 Ind. 457, 68 N.E.2d 789; Colati v. Jirout, 186 Md. 652, 47 A.2d 613; in which the court said:
'Even when a non-conforming building has been destroyed by act of God, the owner should not be allowed to rebuild as a matter of right without authority from statute or ordinance.'
The ordinance provides for the continuation of the nonconforming use. It prohibits the installation of a new trailer in the place of the old. Such a provision is ordinarily included in zoning and police power ordinances because of hardship and doubtful constitutionality of compelling immediate cessation of nonconforming uses. In the case of Inspector of Buildings of Burlington v. Murphy, 320 Mass. 207, 209, 68 N.E.2d 918, the court said:
'But zoning regulations may apply to any 'change of use,' and 'to any alteration of a building or structure when the same would amount to reconstruction, extension or structural change,' * * *'
See Connors v. Town of Burlington, 325 Mass. 494, 495, 91 N.E.2d 212.
In Selligman v. Von Allmen Bros., 297 Ky. 121, 179 S.W.2d 207, 209, the court upheld the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in denying the right to replace wooden exterior walls with brick and said:
In Bobandal Realties, Inc. v. Worthington, 21 A.D.2d 784, 250 N.Y.S.2d 575, 578, the court said:
'The owner of a permitted non-conforming building has no vested right to reconstruct it in non-conforming form after it has been partly destroyed by fire, and the municipality may impose reasonable restrictions on such rebuilding * * *'. And cases cited.
What defendant did here was to remove the old trailer (which under the ordinance he had a right to maintain as a nonconforming use), and replace it with an entirely new trailer. This was prohibited by the ordinance and the Town officials so considered it by refusing to issue the permit requested by the defendant.
The ordinance in the instant case states clearly and without ambiguity that 'house trailers on location will be allowed to remain, but if moved, they cannot be reestablished except in approved trailer parks'.
We have in this case a valid ordinance and a nonconforming use, neither of which are questioned. Upon what logic may that permission be transformed with a right to obtain more than the ordinance provides. Here a new trailer was substituted for an old one. If it is proper to do this once it will be proper to do it again, thus the life of the nonconforming use will be indefinitely prolonged, which would be at complete variance with the spirit of this ordinance, i. e., the gradual elimination of the nonconforming use.
No one in the town may establish a new trailer, except in approved trailer parks. It would be an unwarranted discrimination in favor of defendant to permit him to establish a new trailer in place of the old one.
In Norcross v. Board of Appeal, 255 Mass. 177, 185, 150 N.E. 887, 890, the court said:
See Wilbur v. City of Newton, 302 Mass. 38, 43, 18 N.E.2d 365; Smith v. Juillerat, 161 Ohio, St. 424, 119 N.E. 2d 611; Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303; Koch v. City of Toledo, 37 F.2d 336, (6th Cir); Paye v. City of Grosse Point, 279 Mich. 254, 271 N.W. 826.
In Napierkowski v. Gloucester Tp., 29 N.J. 481, 150 A.2d 481, 489, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heath Tp. v. Sall
...to abolish nonconforming uses as speedily as justice will permit.' " Anderson, n 3 supra, § 6.07, pp 465-466, quoting Windham v. Sprague, 219 A.2d 548, 552-553 (Me.1966).5 The consensus of jurisdictions concur. See 8A McQuillin, n 2 supra, § 25.183, p 22; Anderson, n 3 supra, § 6.07, pp 464......
-
Keith v. Saco River Corridor Com'n
...of zoning is to gradually or eventually eliminate nonconforming uses as speedily as justice will permit. Inhabitants of Town of Windham v. Sprague, 219 A.2d 548, 552-53 (Me.1966); Vermont Brick v. Village of Essex Junction, 135 Vt. 481, 380 A.2d 67, 69 (1977); Taylor v. Metropolitan Develop......
-
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II
...Co., Ky., 394 S.W.2d 593; Building Inspector of Malden v. Werlin Realty, Inc., 349 Mass. 623, 211 N.E.2d 338; Inhabitants of Town of Windham v. Sprague, Me., 219 A.2d 548; South Central Imp. Ass'n v. City of St. Clair Shores, 348 Mich. 153, 82 N.W.2d 453; Arsenault v. City of Keene, 104 N.H......
-
Frost v. Lucey
...A. 733, 10 L.R.A., N.S., 580; York Harbor Village Corporation v. Libby, 126 Me. 537, pages 546-547, 140 A. 382; Inhabitants of the Town of Windham v. Sprague, Me., 219 A.2d 548; 101 C.J.S. Zoning § The defendant in her efforts to show the lower court decree to be against the law and obtain ......