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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403 (2026)

Municipal review and regulation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This section governs municipal review of proposed subdivisions.   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
1.  Municipal reviewing authority.  The municipal reviewing authority shall review all requests for subdivision approval. On all matters concerning subdivision review, the municipal reviewing authority shall maintain a permanent record of all its meetings, proceedings and correspondence.  
[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
1-A.  Joint meetings.  If any portion of a subdivision crosses municipal boundaries, all meetings and hearings to review the application must be held jointly by the reviewing authorities from each municipality. All meetings and hearings to review an application under section 4407 for a revision or amendment to a subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries must be held jointly by the reviewing authorities from each municipality. In addition to other review criteria, the reviewing authorities shall consider and make a finding of fact regarding the criteria described in section 4404, subsection 19.  
The reviewing authorities in each municipality, upon written agreement, may waive the requirement under this subsection for any joint meeting or hearing.  
[PL 1997, c. 226, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Regulations; review procedure.  The municipal reviewing authority may, after a public hearing, adopt, amend or repeal additional reasonable regulations governing subdivisions which shall control until amended, repealed or replaced by regulations adopted by the municipal legislative body. The municipal reviewing authority shall give at least 7 days' notice of this hearing.  
A. The regulations may provide for a multi-stage application or review procedure consisting of no more than 3 stages:  
(1) Preapplication sketch plan;  
(2) Preliminary plan; and  
(3) Final plan.  
Each stage must meet the time requirements of subsections 4 and 5.   [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.  Application; notice; completed application.  This subsection governs the procedure to be followed after receiving an application for a proposed subdivision.  
A. When an application is received, the municipal reviewing authority shall give a dated receipt to the applicant and shall notify by mail all abutting property owners of the proposed subdivision, and the clerk and the reviewing authority of municipalities that abut or include any portion of the subdivision, specifying the location of the proposed subdivision and including a general description of the project. The municipal reviewing authority shall notify by mail a public drinking water supplier if the subdivision is within its source water protection area.   [PL 1999, c. 761, §11 (AMD).]
B. Within 30 days after receiving an application, the municipal reviewing authority shall notify the applicant in writing either that the application is complete or, if the application is incomplete, the specific additional material needed to complete the application.   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
C. After the municipal reviewing authority has determined that a complete application has been filed, it shall notify the applicant and begin its full evaluation of the proposed subdivision.   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
D. The municipal reviewing authority may not accept or approve final plans or final documents prepared within the meaning and intent of Title 32, chapter 141 that are not sealed and signed by the professional land surveyor under whose responsible charge they were completed, as provided in Title 32, section 18226.   [PL 2013, c. 180, §3 (AMD); PL 2013, c. 180, §6 (AFF).]
[PL 2013, c. 180, §3 (AMD); PL 2013, c. 180, §6 (AFF).]
4.  Public hearing; notice.  If the municipal reviewing authority decides to hold a public hearing on an application for subdivision approval, it shall hold the hearing within 30 days after determining it has received a complete application. The municipal reviewing authority shall have notice of the date, time and place of the hearing:  
A. Given to the applicant; and   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
B. Published, at least 2 times, in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality in which the subdivision is proposed to be located. The date of the first publication must be at least 7 days before the hearing.   [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); PL 1989, c. 497, §6 (AMD).]
5.  Decision; time limits.  The municipal reviewing authority shall, within 30 days of a public hearing or, if no hearing is held, within 60 days of determining it has received a complete application or within any other time limit that is otherwise mutually agreed to, issue an order:  
A. Denying approval of the proposed subdivision;   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
B. Granting approval of the proposed subdivision; or   [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
C. Granting approval upon any terms and conditions that it considers advisable to:  
(1) Satisfy the criteria listed in section 4404;  
(2) Satisfy any other regulations adopted by the reviewing authority; and  
(3) Protect and preserve the public's health, safety and general welfare.   [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); PL 1989, c. 497, §7 (AMD).]
6.  Burden of proof; findings of fact.  In all instances, the burden of proof is upon the person proposing the subdivision. In issuing its decision, the reviewing authority shall make findings of fact establishing that the proposed subdivision does or does not meet the criteria described in subsection 5.  
[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
7.  Conditioned on variance.  If the initial approval or any subsequent amendment of a subdivision is based in part on the granting of a variance, the subdivider must comply with section 4406, subsection 1, paragraph B.  
[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1989, c. 104, §§A45, C10 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 497, §§4-7 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 93, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 226, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 761, §11 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 180, §3 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 180, §6 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1991–2016 · leading case: Fitanides v. City of Saco, 843 A.2d 8 (Me. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fitanides v. City of Saco, 843 A.2d 8 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “1 was in effect at the time of the zoning ordinance amendments, pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(2) (1996), it controls.”
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “§ 2691(3)(E) (1996) (decisions of municipal board of appeals must include a statement of findings and conclusions); 30-A M.R.S.A. §§ 4403(6), 4407 (1996) (municipal reviewing authority shall make findings of fact in reviewing proposed or revised subdivisions).”
Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(5), (6) (1996); accord SCARBORough, Me.”
Town of North Yarmouth v. Moulton, 710 A.2d 252 (Me. 1998). · cites it 4× “) declaring that the Town of Yarmouth and the Town of North Yarmouth have jurisdiction over the Moultons’ subdivision and that the jurisdiction is not limited to a joint meeting pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(1-A) (1996 & Supp.1997).”
Gorham Sav. Bank v. Baizley, 1998 ME 9 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403. Section 4401 defines a “subdivision” as: [T]he division of a tract or parcel of land into 3 or more lots within any 6-year period that begins on or after September 23, 1971.”
Glasser v. Town of Northport, 589 A.2d 1280 (Me. 1991). “§ 4956, and the comparable review procedures and criteria now appear at 30-A M.R.S.A. §§ 4403, 4404 (Pamph.1990).”
Bakala v. Town of Stonington, 647 A.2d 85 (Me. 1994). “§ 4956(2) (1978), replaced by 30-A M.R.SA. § 4403 (Supp.1993). Section 4956(1) also provides that “[a] subdivision is the division of a tract or parcel of land into 3 or more lots within any 5-year period.”
Boutet v. Residents of the Town of Old Orchard Beach (Me. Super. Ct 2016). · cites it 3× “30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403 governs municipal review of proposed subdivisions.”
Buckingham v. Town of Scarborough (Me. Super. Ct 2000). · cites it 3× “Requirements for Amendment to Final Plan The September 2, 1999 letter to the Planning Board from Sebago Technics satisfied the requirements of the statute and the Town of Scarborough Subdivision Ordinance for amending a plan. See 30-A M.RS.A. § 4407; R.”
Rioux v. Blagojevic (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “Sufficiency of the Board’s findings There remain two issues that Rioux may pursue on this appeal: the Board’s implied conclusion that the proposed subdivision satisfies the ordinance’s requirements for water drainage, and its implied conclusion that Blagojevic is exempt for the…”
Parisi v. Town of Deer Isle (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Here, the court examines Parisi’s challenges as they apply to the Planning Board’s conclusion that the preliminary plan failed to satisfy the requirements governing the design and construction of roads within the subdivision.”
Damon v. Inhabs of the Town of St. George (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “§ 4404 and section I of the Subdivision Ordinance grant the Board significant discretion in applying these conditions. Moreover, the Defendant notes that the Law Court relied upon the predecessor to section 4403 and similar language in the Skowhegan Subdivision Ordinance to…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(2) — 2 cases
Fitanides v. City of Saco, 843 A.2d 8 (Me. 2004). “1 was in effect at the time of the zoning ordinance amendments, pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(2) (1996), it controls.”
Boutet v. Residents of the Town of Old Orchard Beach (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403 governs municipal review of proposed subdivisions.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(3)(A) — 2 cases
Boutet v. Residents of the Town of Old Orchard Beach (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403 governs municipal review of proposed subdivisions.”
Buckingham v. Town of Scarborough (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “Requirements for Amendment to Final Plan The September 2, 1999 letter to the Planning Board from Sebago Technics satisfied the requirements of the statute and the Town of Scarborough Subdivision Ordinance for amending a plan. See 30-A M.RS.A. § 4407; R.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(4) — 1 case
Buckingham v. Town of Scarborough (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “Requirements for Amendment to Final Plan The September 2, 1999 letter to the Planning Board from Sebago Technics satisfied the requirements of the statute and the Town of Scarborough Subdivision Ordinance for amending a plan. See 30-A M.RS.A. § 4407; R.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(5) — 2 cases
Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112 (Me. 1999). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(5), (6) (1996); accord SCARBORough, Me.”
Hannaford v. Town of Kennebunk (Me. Super. Ct 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(5)(C) — 3 cases
Crispin v. Town of Scarborough, 1999 ME 112 (Me. 1999). “See 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4403(5), (6) (1996); accord SCARBORough, Me.”
Damon v. Inhabs of the Town of St. George (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “§ 4404 and section I of the Subdivision Ordinance grant the Board significant discretion in applying these conditions. Moreover, the Defendant notes that the Law Court relied upon the predecessor to section 4403 and similar language in the Skowhegan Subdivision Ordinance to…”
Buckingham v. Town of Scarborough (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “Requirements for Amendment to Final Plan The September 2, 1999 letter to the Planning Board from Sebago Technics satisfied the requirements of the statute and the Town of Scarborough Subdivision Ordinance for amending a plan. See 30-A M.RS.A. § 4407; R.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(5)(C)(1) — 1 case
Gilpatric v. Town of Gray (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, § 4403(6) — 3 cases
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “§ 2691(3)(E) (1996) (decisions of municipal board of appeals must include a statement of findings and conclusions); 30-A M.R.S.A. §§ 4403(6), 4407 (1996) (municipal reviewing authority shall make findings of fact in reviewing proposed or revised subdivisions).”
Rioux v. Blagojevic (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “Sufficiency of the Board’s findings There remain two issues that Rioux may pursue on this appeal: the Board’s implied conclusion that the proposed subdivision satisfies the ordinance’s requirements for water drainage, and its implied conclusion that Blagojevic is exempt for the…”
Parisi v. Town of Deer Isle (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Here, the court examines Parisi’s challenges as they apply to the Planning Board’s conclusion that the preliminary plan failed to satisfy the requirements governing the design and construction of roads within the subdivision.”
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.