Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 30
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4953 (2026)

Zoning ordinance

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 349 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 334, §2 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 455, §3 (RP). PL 1971, c. 461, §1 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 622, §110 (RP).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1967–1982 · leading case: Thornton v. Lothridge, 447 A.2d 473 (Me. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thornton v. Lothridge, 447 A.2d 473 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “In so ruling we express no opinion whatsoever upon the effect of 30 M.”
Frost v. Lucey, 231 A.2d 441 (Me. 1967). “The pertinent enabling legislation, [30 M.R.S.A. § 4953, which substituted for R.”
In re Spring Valley Dev., 300 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4953, repealed P.L. 1971, ch.”
Robinson v. Bd. of Appeals, 356 A.2d 196 (Me. 1976). “Second, the city’s failure to prescribe standards was ruled invalid as an attempt to escape compliance with the comprehensive plan requirement of 30 M.R.S.A. § 4953(2) (now 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961, 4962(1)(A)).”
Gagne v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston, 281 A.2d 579 (Me. 1971). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4953 §§ 5. Application. A zoning ordinance does not apply to structures and uses existing at the time it is enacted, but applies to new structures and uses, and changes in structures and uses made afterward.”
Town of Waterboro v. Lessard, 287 A.2d 126 (Me. 1972). · cites it 2× “) 30 M.R.S.A. § 4953 retains the identical language.”
Clardy v. Town of Livermore, 403 A.2d 779 (Me. 1979). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4953 (1964) with 30 M.R.S.A.”
City of Auburn v. E. Die Co., 284 A.2d 492 (Me. 1971). “…under the statutes or common law. Houlton v. Titcomb, 102 Me. 272 , 66 A. 733 (1906); 17 M.R.S.A. §§ 2705, 2802 ; 30 M.R.S.A. § 4953(8).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4953(2): 1 case
Robinson v. Bd. of Appeals, 356 A.2d 196 (Me. 1976). “Second, the city’s failure to prescribe standards was ruled invalid as an attempt to escape compliance with the comprehensive plan requirement of 30 M.R.S.A. § 4953(2) (now 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961, 4962(1)(A)).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4953(8): 1 case
City of Auburn v. E. Die Co., 284 A.2d 492 (Me. 1971). “…under the statutes or common law. Houlton v. Titcomb, 102 Me. 272 , 66 A. 733 (1906); 17 M.R.S.A. §§ 2705, 2802 ; 30 M.R.S.A. § 4953(8).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.