August 14, 2000 Letter from Jim Haddow to Freeman Abbot
regarding Access Road Construction Standards
TELECOPIER
August 14, 2000
Freeman Abbott, CEO You have asked me to review the relevant sections of the Limington Zoning Ordinance and to provide you with my opinion about the application of the requirements of Ordinance Section 7.1 to a 300-foot access-way serving a house located 100 feet or less from a public road.
First, while the access-way in question fits the definition of "Driveway" in the Ordinance (a "vehicular access-way fewer than five hundred (500) feet in length"), that does not mean that it cannot also be subject to the requirements of Section 7.1. Indeed, every access-way between and 500 feet in length that serves one or two lots is, at least potentially, both a "Driveway" and an "access road" under Section 7.1. There is nothing in the Ordinance to suggest that these terms were meant to be mutually exclusive.
The real question is whether the road construction requirements in Section 7.1A should be applied to an access-way that is more than 100 feet in length, even if the house it serves is 100 feet or less from a public or private road. While a cursory reading of Section 7.1B might suggest otherwise, in my opinion, the only reasonable interpretation of the Ordinance, consistent with the obvious purpose of Section 7.1, is that the road construction requirements set forth in Section 7.1A should be applied to any access way that exceeds 100 feet in length, regardless of the distance between the house it serves and the nearest public or private road.
Freeman Abbott, CEO A contrary interpretation of these provisions would cause an absurd result. Suppose, for example that houses are constructed on two adjacent lots. House A is sited 100 feet from the sideline of the nearest road, and house B is sited 101 feet from the same road. The access-way to house A follows a winding path for over 250 feet from the road to the house, whereas the access road to house B is a straight 101-foot line. If the sole criterion for applying the construction standards of Section 7.1A were the distance from house to road, the 101-foot road would have to be constructed to those standards, whereas the 250-foot road would not. Since the obvious purpose of the standards in the first place is to insure that emergency vehicles have ready access to all newly constructed homes, this result would make no sense. The longer road could be constructed to much lower standards, thus impeding or preventing fire and rescue access to house A.
Admittedly, under my interpretation of the current Ordinance.. there will always be a difference between the treatment of a 100-foot-long access way and a 101-foot-long access way. While that may seem arbitrary. there is a rational relationship between the length of the access way and the difficulty of getting to the home it serves, so it makes sense for the Ordinance to say (generally) that shorter access ways need not be built to the same standards as longer access ways. On the other hand, it does not make sense to disregard the length of the access way in determining what construction standards to apply, as you would be required to do if the distance from house to road were the determining factor.
I hope that I have answered your question, and if I can be of assistance to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JBH/j
Freeman Abbott's Letter on the same subject:
To the Limington Appeals Board
I was not able to be here tonight for your meeting, but I wanted you to know what my interpretation of 7.1 B in the (LZO) If a road or driveway is over 100 feet then it comes under this section even if the house itself is only 75 feet from the Main road. I have a letter from the town layer and he shares the same opinion with me. Please take this letter and the town layer's interpretation into consideration when deciding the appeal of Mike Gould tonight. If an appeal is granted, then it will be devastating blow to the town's road standards (set forth in the LZO), and will open the door for more nonconforming roads in the town. These roads standards have been strictly enforced since 1997, without any exceptions. I urge you not to grant this appeal. Thank you
Freeman Abbott CEO
Please note that
www.Limington.org
is not the official website of the Government of the Town of Limington.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
50 MONUMENT SQUARE
POST OFFICE BOX 9733
PORTLAND, MAINE 04104-5033
GERALD F. PETRUCCELLI
JOEL C. MARTIN *
MICHAEL K. MARTIN
JAMES B. HADDOW
LINDA C RUSSELL
THOMAS C. BRADLEY
BRUCE A. McGLAUFLIN
* on leave as ABA Rule of Law Liaison, Republic of Moldova
TELEPHONE
(207) 775-0200
(207) 775-2360
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
TOWN OF LIMINGTON
P.O. Box 240
Limington, Maine 04049
Re: Access Road Construction Standards
Dear Freeman:
August 14, 2000
Page 2
Sincerely,
James B. Haddow
James B. Haddow
Freeman Abbott