ELR Citation: ELR 20190
No(s). Cvm-92-13 (Me. Aug 20, 1992)

The court holds that an amendment to a town zoning ordinance, the effect of which is to prevent a developer from moving forward with residential development of property containing wetlands, is a constitutionally valid exercise of the town's police power. The court holds that the amendment is constitutional, because it provides for the public welfare, and by means appropriate to the desired ends, and was not exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The court also holds that the town council's denial of the developer's zone-change request was in basic harmony with the resource protection district's (RPD's) comprehensive plan. The court further holds that the town is not equitably estopped from enforcing the RPD's ordinance, because the developer's reliance on spoken statements of unauthorized, and in some instances unnamed, officials who allegedly approved of the residential lots, is unreasonable as a matter of law. The court next remands the developer's claim that the enactment of the ordinance and the subsequent denial of its zone-change request constituted an uncompensated taking. Finally, the court holds that the notice regarding the town council's intention to review proposed amendments to the town's zoning ordinance was constitutionally sufficient and met the state statutory notice requirement.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Peggy L. McGehee, Frederick B. Finberg
Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley & Keddy
One Canal Plaza
P.O. Box 426, Portland ME 04112
(207) 774-2635

Counsel for Defendant
Michael H. Hill
Monoghan, Leahy, Hochadel & Libby
95 Exchange St., P.O. Box 7046, Portland ME 04112
(207) 774-3906

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, and RUDMAN, JJ.