Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4356 (2026)

Moratoria

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Any moratorium adopted by a municipality on the processing or issuance of development permits or licenses must meet the following requirements. [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

1. Necessity. The moratorium must be needed:

A. To prevent a shortage or an overburden of public facilities that would otherwise occur during the effective period of the moratorium or that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of any proposed or anticipated development; or [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

B. Because the application of existing comprehensive plans, land use ordinances or regulations or other applicable laws, if any, is inadequate to prevent serious public harm from residential, commercial or industrial development in the affected geographic area. [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

2. Definite term. The moratorium must be of a definite term of not more than 180 days. The moratorium may be extended for additional 180-day periods if the municipality adopting the moratorium finds that:

A. The problem giving rise to the need for the moratorium still exists; and [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

B. Reasonable progress is being made to alleviate the problem giving rise to the need for the moratorium. [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]

3. Extension by select board. In municipalities where the municipal legislative body is the town meeting, the select board may extend the moratorium in compliance with subsection 2 after notice and hearing.

[PL 2021, c. 275, §46 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1989, c. 104, §§A45,C10 (NEW). PL 2021, c. 275, §46 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1990–2019 · leading case: Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc. v. Town of Eliot, 2000 ME 82 (Me. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc. v. Town of Eliot, 2000 ME 82 (Me. 2000). · cites it 7× “§ 4301(11) (1996) 1 and, accordingly, did not violate 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356 (1996). 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 288 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D. Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “In a manner that the City believed was consistent with Maine law, 30-A M.R.S. § 4356, on December 16, 2013, the City Council approved a "Moratorium on Development Proposals Involving the Loading of Oil Sands/Tar Sands Products onto Tank Vessels Docking in South Portland.”

Minster v. Town of Gray, 584 A.2d 646 (Me. 1990). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356(1) (Supp.1990). 3 . Contrary to Minster's contention, our decision in Tisei , to vacate a summary judgment granted for the plaintiff, recognized the significant distinction between the minimal burden of necessity placed on a defendant-municipality to…”

CSG Props., LLC v. Town of Windham (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “The Town says that because municipalities are granted statutory authority to enact moratoria, see 30-A M.RS. § 4356, 2 the court lacks authority to review the "legislative 2 Title SO-A, section 4356, Maine Revised Statutes, reads as follows: Any moratorium adopted by a…”

Inland Golf Props., Inc. v. Inhabitants Town of Wells (Me. Super. Ct 2000). · cites it 2× “Inland Golf also moves for summary judgment on Count II of its Complaint, asking this Court to hold as a matter of law that the Residential Growth Ordinance is invalid under 30-A M.RS.A. §4356. Inland Golf additionally seeks declaratory relief with respect to Count II of its…”

Ogunquit Vill. Estates v. The Inh. of the Town of Ogunquit (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. §4356. In this case the decisions of the Selectmen regarding road or traffic flow modifications and of the Planning Board do not constitute a moratorium.”

The Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, Bd. of Appeals (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356(1). In concluding the discussion with the "Friends of Rollins Ridge," the Town Counsel chose not to formally initiate the moratorium process and decided that the Planning Board should review the Project.”

Hughes Bros., Inc. v. Town of Eddington (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “v 30-A M.R.S.A § 4356 establishes !he requirements fol' imposition of moratorin by i municipulities.”

Hughes Bros. Inc. v. Eddington, ME (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “23, 2014 by the Selecunen pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A § 4356(3). (Exs. 27 and 27(A-D).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4356(1) — 2 cases

Minster v. Town of Gray, 584 A.2d 646 (Me. 1990). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356(1) (Supp.1990). 3 . Contrary to Minster's contention, our decision in Tisei , to vacate a summary judgment granted for the plaintiff, recognized the significant distinction between the minimal burden of necessity placed on a defendant-municipality to…”

The Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, Bd. of Appeals (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356(1). In concluding the discussion with the "Friends of Rollins Ridge," the Town Counsel chose not to formally initiate the moratorium process and decided that the Planning Board should review the Project.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4356(1)(A) — 1 case

Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc. v. Town of Eliot, 2000 ME 82 (Me. 2000). “§ 4301(11) (1996) 1 and, accordingly, did not violate 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356 (1996). 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4356(2) — 1 case

Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc. v. Town of Eliot, 2000 ME 82 (Me. 2000). “§ 4301(11) (1996) 1 and, accordingly, did not violate 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4356 (1996). 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4356(3) — 1 case

Hughes Bros. Inc. v. Eddington, ME (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “23, 2014 by the Selecunen pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A § 4356(3). (Exs. 27 and 27(A-D).”

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.