Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michael Adams v. Town of Brunswick

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 2, 2010No. Docket: Cum-09-133Published

1DissentJabar, J.

[¶ 28] I respectfully dissent for two reasons. First, in my view, the majority relies too heavily on the financial arrangement between the Owners and the tenants, rather than focusing on the use of the premises. Second, I believe that the majority wrongly analyzes whether 17 Cleaveland constitutes a “two dwelling unit,” rather than a “Dwelling, Single/Two Family,” which is the operative language of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. See Brunswick, Me., Zoning Ordinance, ch. 2, § 202.1 (May 7,1997).

[¶ 29] By narrowly focusing on the terms of the lease agreement, the majority’s analysis elevates…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stewart v. Town of SedgwickSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002
  2. Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of EliotSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
  3. Bodack v. Town of OgunquitSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2006
  4. JPP, LLC v. Town of GouldsboroSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API