Aubry v. Town of Mount Desert, 10 A.3d 662

Horton and Taillon applied in 2006 for a conditional use permit to add outdoor seating at Horton's restaurant in Mount Desert.
The Planning Board approved the application with a 8:30 p.m. last seating time for the outdoor patio.
Abutters appealed due to lack of notice, leading to multiple denials and remands across the Planning Board, ZBA, and Superior Court.
In 2008 the Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Horton and Taillon's appeal for lack of a final judgment and remanded the matter to the Town for further adjudication.
In 2009-2010 the Planning Board granted an amended permit upon remand; Horton/Horton’s successors (the Aubrys) challenged the permit on appeal to the ZBA and then to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court later concluded two ordinance sections were void for vagueness and remanded to the ZBA for remand to the Planning Board to decide permit issuance under remaining ordinance provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is interlocutory/ripe for review	Aubrys argue final judgment rule applies to remand orders they challenge.	Town argues no final judgment; remand is not a final action.	Appeal dismissed as unripe and interlocutory.

Brickley v. Horton, 2008 ME 111 (Me. 2008) (interlocutory appeal when remanded for further municipal decision-making; final judgment required)
E. Perry Iron & Metal Co. v. City of Portland, 2006 ME 52 (Me. 2006) (three final-judgment exceptions to appealability)
York Cnty. Bd. of Realtors v. York Cnty. Comm'rs, 634 A.2d 958 (Me. 1993) (judicial economy exception not satisfied here)
Peaker v. City of Biddeford, 2007 ME 105 (Me. 2007) (interlocutory review context for remands)
Griswold v. Town of Denmark, 2007 ME 93 (Me. 2007) (interlocutory appeal considerations)
Malonson v. Town of Berwick, 2003 ME 148 (Me. 2003) (final judgment rule and interlocutory review considerations)
Doggett v. Town of Gouldsboro, 2002 ME 175 (Me. 2002) (interlocutory appeal limitations)