James Blanchard v. Town of Bar Harbor, 221 A.3d 554

In June 2017 Bar Harbor voters adopted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating a new “Shoreland Maritime Activities District,” adding definitions (e.g., “passenger terminal,” “parking deck”), and applying that district to the Town’s Ferry Terminal Property; the Amendment was intended to permit larger cruise ships.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection approved the Amendment on July 18, 2017 (municipal ordinance amendments require DEP approval).
Owners of waterfront properties with views over waters adjacent to the Ferry Terminal filed for a declaratory judgment seeking invalidation of the Amendment.
The Business and Consumer Docket (BCD) entered judgment for the Town, finding a ripe controversy, standing for Bar Harbor owners, and deferring to the DEP.
On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the BCD judgment and remanded for dismissal without prejudice, holding plaintiffs lacked a particularized injury (standing) and that the challenge was not ripe; the court did not reach the substantive statutory or DEP-deference claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge ordinance	Owners assert anticipatory/declarative relief and invoke preventive-remedial doctrine to sue without particularized injury	Town contends non-Bar Harbor owners lack standing; claims Bar Harbor owners must show particularized injury	Plaintiffs lack standing: their alleged injury (views) is speculative and not particularized; preventive-remedial doctrine inapplicable to remedial relief already occurred
Ripeness of declaratory challenge	Ordinance change alone creates a live controversy warranting pre-enforcement review	Town argues no concrete development or permit applications exist, so dispute is speculative	Not ripe: no concrete plans, no permits, issues not fit for review and withholding review causes no hardship
Merits: DEP deference and statutory consistency	Amendment conflicts with state law/DEP regs; court should not over-defer to DEP	DEP approved Amendment; BCD deferred to DEP	Not decided—court expressly declined to reach merits after resolving standing and ripeness

Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979) (recognizes preventive‑remedial standing doctrine to seek preventive relief for public wrongs)
Lehigh v. Pittston Co., 456 A.2d 355 (Me. 1983) (distinguishes preventive vs. remedial standing and questions scope of preventive‑remedial doctrine)
Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, 147 A.3d 842 (Me. 2016) (applies particularized‑injury requirement for remedial claims)
Harrington v. Inhabitants of Town of Kennebunk, 459 A.2d 557 (Me. 1983) (view obstruction is not appropriate for judicial notice; evidence is required to prove view impairment)
Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham, 868 A.2d 172 (Me. 2005) (DJA permits anticipatory challenges where controversy is concrete and imminent)
Johnson v. City of Augusta, 902 A.2d 855 (Me. 2006) (ripeness doctrine prevents premature adjudication; review is de novo)
James v. Inhabitants of the Town of West Bath, 437 A.2d 863 (Me. 1981) (anticipatory declaratory relief available to parties directly affected by a statute)
Ace Tire Co. v. Municipal Officers of City of Waterville, 302 A.2d 90 (Me. 1973) (anticipatory standing where plaintiff paid challenged fees under protest)