Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4954 (2026)

Zoning board of appeals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1969, c. 334, §3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 79, §§1-4 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 364 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 455, §3 (RP). PL 1971, c. 622, §111 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 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 3× “Under both the prior 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954 and the current § 4963, undue hardship is the standard to be used by the board of appeals in deciding an appeal for a variance.”

Gagne v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston, 281 A.2d 579 (Me. 1971). · cites it 3× “” 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954, § 2, A. Viewed in their ordinary meanings the words “enlarged” and “altered” do not appear to have been intended to described the act of demolition of an existing building and the erection of an entirely new one.”

Stucki v. Plavin, 291 A.2d 508 (Me. 1972). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4954, sub. 2, par. B. That this order of notice was unnecessary is a conclusion reached by this Court in Your Homes, Inc.”

Barnard v. Zoning Bd. of App. of Town of Yarmouth, 313 A.2d 741 (Me. 1974). “The Yarmouth ordinance merely incorporates language employed in 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954. Sec. 4954 was replaced by 30 M.”

Moyer v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 233 A.2d 311 (Me. 1967). “Should the Court below however have sustained the Board regarding the applicant’s original proposal ? The intended use of the property at 960-970 Shore Road, in Cape Elizabeth, as conditionally approved by the Board, consisted in the erection and operation of a new “hotel”…”

Cmty. Sch., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 369 A.2d 1146 (Me. 1977). “We may note, however, as a guide to practice, that we view § 2411(3) (F), applicable in the Lippoth case but not there cited, as a legislative restatement of the interpretation given its predecessor, 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954, in Moyer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, Me.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4954(2) — 1 case

Gagne v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston, 281 A.2d 579 (Me. 1971). “” 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954, § 2, A. Viewed in their ordinary meanings the words “enlarged” and “altered” do not appear to have been intended to described the act of demolition of an existing building and the erection of an entirely new one.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4954(2)(A) — 1 case

Thornton v. Lothridge, 447 A.2d 473 (Me. 1982). “Under both the prior 30 M.R.S.A. § 4954 and the current § 4963, undue hardship is the standard to be used by the board of appeals in deciding an appeal for a variance.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4954(2A) — 1 case

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.