Tenants Harbor General Store, LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection
10 A.3d 722
| Me. | 2011Background
- In 2007, Volle contracted to buy Tenants Harbor property with a convenience store and gasoline pumps; old tanks were removed due to detected leaks before closing.
- The old tanks were pre-2001 installations, triggering a 2001 regime that created a grandfathered category for replacements on the same site if timely and properly registered.
- The Department treated a replacement of grandfathered tanks as a new facility rather than a replacement, applying newer siting restrictions.
- Volle’s successor LLC submitted a registration with the required fee within twelve months after removal, seeking replacement status rather than abandonment.
- The Department refused to recognize grandfathered status, deeming the LLC’s registration a new installation and requiring variances under new proximity rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department may disregard grandfathered status through unwritten rules | Tenants Harbor argues the Department cannot apply unpromulgated criteria to terminate grandfathered status. | DEP contends it may classify installations as new if not timely registered under its interpretation of replacement rules. | No; department cannot rely on unwritten practice to deny grandfathered status. |
| Whether the 2001 replacement exemptions apply to the LLC's registration | LLC contends its replacement within 12 months falls under 38 M.R.S. § 563-C(2) as a replacement facility on the same property. | DEP treated the registration as for a new facility due to abandonment actions and lack of written notice to replace. | Yes; replacement exemption applies if within 12 months and on same property. |
| Whether notice of replacement is required by statute or regulation | No statutory or regulatory notice requirement exists for replacement; timing governs classification. | Previous owner’s abandonment notice suggested replacement should be treated as new. | No notice requirement; timing governs replacement/abandonment classification. |
| Proper interpretation of 38 M.R.S. § 563-C(2) and related provisions | Statute allows replacement of a pre-2001 facility if within 12 months and fees continue; must be respected. | Statute should be read with Departmental interpretations in light of newer regulations. | Statutory language controls; replacement within 12 months should be recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Uliano v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009) (deferential standard for agency decisions on statutory interpretation)
- FPL Energy Me. Hydro LLC v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2007 ME 97 (Me. 2007) (statutory interpretation defers to agency unless statute compels otherwise)
- Murphy v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992) (plain meaning and harmonious construction of statutes)
- Raynes v. Dep't of Corr., 2010 ME 100 (Me. 2010) (final agency action review jurisdiction)
- Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 37 v. Pineo, 2010 ME 11 (Me. 2010) (final agency action/deference in administrative appeals)