Law Court to Municipalities: Only Final Action Appealable

Training for: Legal Notes

The Maine Supreme Court has again urged municipalities to review their ordinances to make appeals procedures more “standardized, understandable, and comprehensive.”

In Bryant v. Town of Camden, 2016 ME 27, an abutter appealed a decision by the ZBA granting a special exception permit for the expansion of an inn. The zoning ordinance, however, also required site plan approval from the planning board, which had not yet acted. Nevertheless, the ordinance purported to authorize a separate court appeal from each decision, before all local decision-making was final, and this the Chief Justice (on behalf of a unanimous court) could not abide.

She criticized it as an “inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive process” and clearly contrary to judicial doctrines requiring finality of decision-making before a local administrative decision is ripe for judicial review. Municipalities, she wrote, simply have no legislative power to override judicial authority to decide when a decision is appealable. Thus, even if an ordinance authorizes an appeal from “any” decision, the Court will still require a final, dispositive decision in order to prevent piecemeal review.

The Court in Bryant was plainly annoyed with a local land use appeal it felt it should not have to hear. This is the third such instance within just the past year (see “Law Court to Local Planners: Be Consistent & Thorough!,” Maine Townsman, June 2015; “Appeal Period Begins on Date of Vote, Not Written Decision,” Maine Townsman, February 2015). The irony, though, is that it is appellants, not municipalities, who are put at greater risk by this decision since it is now even more ambiguous when an appeal may or must be filed in matters involving multiple local approvals. (By R.P.F.)

The Maine Supreme Court has again urged municipalities to review their ordinances to make appeals procedures more “standardized, understandable, and comprehensive.”

In Bryant v. Town of Camden, 2016 ME 27, an abutter appealed a decision by the ZBA granting a special exception permit for the expansion of an inn. The zoning ordinance, however, also required site plan approval from the planning board, which had not yet acted. Nevertheless, the ordinance purported to authorize a separate court appeal from each decision, before all local decision-making was final, and this the Chief Justice (on behalf of a unanimous court) could not abide.

She criticized it as an “inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive process” and clearly contrary to judicial doctrines requiring finality of decision-making before a local administrative decision is ripe for judicial review. Municipalities, she wrote, simply have no legislative power to override judicial authority to decide when a decision is appealable. Thus, even if an ordinance authorizes an appeal from “any” decision, the Court will still require a final, dispositive decision in order to prevent piecemeal review.

The Court in Bryant was plainly annoyed with a local land use appeal it felt it should not have to hear. This is the third such instance within just the past year (see “Law Court to Local Planners: Be Consistent & Thorough!,” Maine Townsman, June 2015; “Appeal Period Begins on Date of Vote, Not Written Decision,” Maine Townsman, February 2015). The irony, though, is that it is appellants, not municipalities, who are put at greater risk by this decision since it is now even more ambiguous when an appeal may or must be filed in matters involving multiple local approvals. (By R.P.F.)