Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4961 (2026)

Comprehensive plan

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1971, c. 455, §2 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 536, §§16,17 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 418 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 598, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 794, §A3 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 737, §§A1,C106 (RP). PL 1987, c. 766, §5 (RP). PL 1987, c. 820, §8 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§C8,C10 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 878, §C30 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1972–1987 · leading case: Baker v. Town of Woolwich, 517 A.2d 64 (Me. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Baker v. Town of Woolwich, 517 A.2d 64 (Me. 1987). · cites it 3× “In constructing this argument Baker first contends that the Town has never enacted a valid comprehensive plan pursuant to 30 M.R.S.A. § 4961 (1978 & Supp. 1986). 1 Next, he contends that because 30 M.”

Robinson v. Bd. of Appeals, Town of Kennebunk, 356 A.2d 196 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “§ 4953(2) (now 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961, 4962(1)(A)). We determined that the requirement that zoning be consistent with a comprehensive plan was intended to avoid “ad hoc, unplanned, and potentially arbitrary zoning”.”

Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay, Etc. v. Russell, 410 A.2d 554 (Me. 1980). “1979) is not essentially different from general zoning authorized for many years by 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961 et seq. and 1917 (1978) and their predecessors, and there is nothing unconstitutional in its delegation of those legislative powers to local legislative bodies.”

LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 528 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1987). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4961(1)(A) (Supp.1986); see Baker v.”

Warren v. Mun. Officers of the Town of Gorham, 431 A.2d 624 (Me. 1981). “Zoning powers are specifically dealt with at 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961 et seq. 4 . In fact, the record does contain a study, entitled “Land Use Development Patterns and Trends: Policy Recommendations,” prepared for the Gorham Planning Board in 1972.”

Benjamin v. Houle, 431 A.2d 48 (Me. 1981). “In view of the limited meaning of zoning in 30 M.R.S.A. § 4961, the City of Auburn was free, under 30 M.”

Stucki v. Plavin, 291 A.2d 508 (Me. 1972). “§ 4953 and since the 1971 amendment, by 30 M.R.S.A. § 4961 et seq. The effect of these statutes is to delegate to cities and towns, under the conditions there prescribed, legislative power to enact land use control regulations, employing zoning ordinances for the purpose.”

Natale v. Kennebunkport Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 363 A.2d 1372 (Me. 1976). “” 30 M.R.S.A. § 4961(1) We find by study of the entirety of the Kennebunkport Zoning Ordinance of March, 1972, as amended, that the ordinance reflects an overall design which resolves in favor of plaintiff the ambiguity in Section 3(B)(1).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4961(1) — 2 cases

Robinson v. Bd. of Appeals, Town of Kennebunk, 356 A.2d 196 (Me. 1976). “§ 4953(2) (now 30 M.R.S.A. §§ 4961, 4962(1)(A)). We determined that the requirement that zoning be consistent with a comprehensive plan was intended to avoid “ad hoc, unplanned, and potentially arbitrary zoning”.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30, § 4961(1)(A) — 1 case

LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 528 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1987). “30 M.R.S.A. § 4961(1)(A) (Supp.1986); see Baker v.”

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.