CUMap-24-33
Me. Super. CtNov 13, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Christian Hill Properties, LLC (CHP) appealed the Casco Planning Board’s approval of an adult-use marijuana store at 325 Roosevelt Trail, abutting property leased by CHP.
- Attorney Stephean Chute, CHP's member, opposed the project in individual and alleged representative capacities before the Planning Board but was found by the Board of Appeals (BOA) not to have standing.
- CHP appealed the BOA’s standing denial and moved to supplement the record with new evidence and to amend its pleadings; BOA sought dismissal for procedural failures.
- CHP accused BOA attorney of ex parte communications warranting disqualification, relating to advice given on zoning/setback issues pre-application.
- The court reviewed whether to allow a trial on additional facts, to dismiss for non-compliance, and various procedural requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial of Facts (Rule 80B(d)) | Needed to prove privity/standing with Chute, supplement record | Docs offered are irrelevant or already included | Denied; evidence should have been introduced before BOA |
| Motion to Amend Pleadings | Sought to update pleadings with new ordinance info | No opposition | Granted; timely as a matter of course |
| Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution | Procedural violation not prejudicial; amended record timely | Dismiss for failing to meet/confer and provide full record | Denied; violation present but no undue prejudice or bad faith |
| Disqualification of BOA Counsel | Ex parte communications created conflict/prejudice | Communications were proper legal advice, no prejudice | Denied; no affirmative violation or actual prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Silsby v. Belch, 952 A.2d 218 (Me. 2008) (trial of the facts is only to supplement record where facts are missing and could not be previously provided)
- Bakers Table, Inc. v. City of Portland, 743 A.2d 237 (Me. 2000) (court may augment the administrative record only for procedural irregularity or bias)
- Morin v. Me. Educ. Assoc., 993 A.2d 1097 (Me. 2010) (two-part test for counsel disqualification: ethical violation and actual prejudice)