Witham Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Bar Harbor
2011 ME 104
| Me. | 2011Background
- The Witham Family Limited Partnership (the Partnership) appeals a Superior Court dismissal for lack of standing after challenging two Bar Harbor Board of Appeals decisions related to North South’s hotel permit.
- North South sought a hotel permit; the Planning Board denied it in March 2010 for exceeding height limits, while other requirements were met.
- North South appealed to the Board of Appeals, with Bearor (on behalf of the Partnership) participating at Planning Board hearings prior to the Board of Appeals’ review.
- The Board of Appeals reversed the Planning Board on height, remanded to issue the permit, and the Planning Board issued the permit in May 2010.
- Between the first and second Board hearings, the Partnership, through Bearor, filed its own appeal challenging Planning Board findings on parking and street width; the Board of Appeals limited Partnership’s discussion to issues other than height and upheld the Planning Board’s conclusions.
- The Superior Court dismissed the Rule 80B complaint, holding the Partnership lacked standing to challenge either Board of Appeals decision; the Partnership appeals the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Partnership had standing to challenge North South’s Board of Appeals decision | Partnership appeared and has particularized injury from the decision. | Standing requires formal appearance before the board. | Partnership has standing. |
| Whether Partnership had standing to challenge the Planning Board-based reasoning in its own appeal | Continuing injury from the denied permit constitutes aggrievement. | Only the Planning Board’s decision or its ultimate outcome matters for standing. | Partnership has standing to challenge the Planning Board’s decision. |
| Whether Bearor’s dual public/Partnership representation barred by judicial estoppel | Bearor’s appearance on behalf of the Partnership is valid under the record. | Bearor’s representation could raise estoppel concerns. | Not persuasive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 879 A.2d 1007 (Me. 2005) (expands 'appearance' to include participation by attorney representing abutting interests)
- Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2 A.3d 284 (Me. 2010) (defines standing in 80B appeals; broad view of participation)
- Rowe v. City of S. Portland, 730 A.2d 673 (Me. 1999) (interprets 'appearance' in 80B context)
- Sahl v. Town of York, 760 A.2d 266 (Me. 2000) (requires particularized injury for standing)
- Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Pub. Lands, 672 A.2d 91 (Me. 1996) (collateral estoppel-like concerns for standing via injury)
- Sevigny v. Home Builders Ass’n of Me., Inc., 429 A.2d 197 (Me. 1981) (illustrates collateral consequences in standing analysis)
- Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Town of Otis, 716 A.2d 1023 (Me. 1998) (essential party designation under statutory framework)