The state’s highest court, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, is vacating a Knox County judge’s decision to uphold a Camden board’s approval of a Camden Harbour Inn expansion project. Additionally, the court has remanded the matter back to Knox County for dismissal of the original complaint filed by the inn’s neighbor.

The Feb. 9 decision dismissed a neighbor’s complaint against the inn for pursuing town approval of adding eight rooms, but not without the Supreme Court judges advising Camden to address its appeal process, and describing it as costly and time-consuming for both the taxpayer and private parties.

At issue was a Camden Harbour Inn permit request to add eight more rooms and four parking places at the inn, and reduce the number of seats in the inn’s restaurant by 16. Operating under Breda LLC, the inn had asked for town approval of the project in 2013. 

The town’s Zoning Board of Appeals granted a special exception permit, and the next step in the municipal process involved Breda’s pursuit of planning board approval of a site plan review. However, Camden Harbour Inn neighbor Susan Bryant appealed the ZBA permit before the second phases of the permit process continued with the planning board.

Bryant had cited noise and traffic as some of her concerns about the project.

In accordance with town ordinance, she appealed to the Knox County Superior Court, asking that court to overturn the ZBA permit.

The Knox County Superior Court affirmed the ZBA decision, and Bryant then took her appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. 

But the judges there concluded that they could not proceed on the appeal made to them given that the municipal review of the original expansion project by the inn’s owners had not concluded in moving from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Planning Board.

They wrote: “Breda’s proposal to eliminate 16 seats in its restaurant and add eight guest rooms and four parking spaces at the Inn has now been pending for two full years, and we have no indication on this record that the proposal has even reached consideration by the Planning Board. The costs and delays resulting from the Town’s explicit authorization of interlocutory appeals from each intermediate step of a multi-part process are evident.”

They wrote: “We again encourage Maine’s cities and towns, perhaps with the assistance of the Maine Municipal Association, to review the myriad provisions in local ordinances addressing finality and appealability,” the judges wrote. “The creation of standardized, understandable, and comprehensive rules for the provision of appellate review could substantially diminish the problems of cost and delay created by the language of the municipalities’ disparate ordinances.”

The complaint filed against Breda LLC, the owners of the the inn, by Bryant, was filed in Knox County District Court in March 2014. 

The judges acknowledged that Bryant followed town ordinance in her appeal of the Camden ZBA permit, and criticized that very ordinance because it allows for piecemeal appeals of the municipal procedure.

“Although Bryant’s appeal from the grant of the preliminary special exception permit was expressly provided for in the Ordinance, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for dismissal of Bryant’s complaint because the decision of the ZBA was not a final action subject to appellate review in the courts, and the matter is not justiciable,” the Law Court wrote, on Feb. 9.

In the Law Court review of the case, the judges spent time studying Camden’s land use ordinance, municipal processes, “administrative remedies, and ripeness,” as well as Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, as outlined in state law.

They cited cases that included nearby towns of Cushing and Rockport, and quoted a lawsuit conclusion, “In the absence of a final administrative decision—as in the absence of a final court judgment—an appeal is unripe because an appellate court cannot undertake complete and meaningful appellate review.”

“Although the Town’s Ordinance purports to authorize this inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive process, the provisions allowing for such piecemeal review cannot be given effect,” they wrote in their decision. “A town may not create an appealable event that does not comply with judicially established doctrines requiring finality of decision making. Specifically, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction, exhaustion, and ripeness may not be overwritten through a town’s exercise of the ordinance authority conferred on it by the Legislature.”

Quoting state law, they wrote, “Any municipality, by the adoption, amendment or repeal of ordinances or bylaws, may exercise any power or function which the Legislature has power to confer upon it, which is not denied either expressly or by clear implication . . . .”). Simply put, the legislative power vested in a municipality through home rule may not supplant the power of the courts to determine whether a justiciable controversy has been presented.

“Thus, although the Town’s Ordinance authorizes appeal from ‘any’ ZBA decision to the Superior Court, we require a final agency decision so that we may prevent piecemeal appeals from municipal decisions that do not finally dispose of a matter.”

They said that the Superior Court’s judgment must be vacated and the complaint dismissed so that Camden’s review committees have the opportunity to complete their consideration of Breda’s proposed use. 

Bryant’s attorney, Ryan Dumais, of Eaton Peabody, said Tuesday afternoon: “We are pleased that the court confirmed that the space and bulk determination still needs to be made by the planning board and nothing will happen until the planning board makes those determinations.”

Raymond Brunanyszki, who is one of the owners of the Camden Harbour Inn, said Tuesday afternoon that his company, Breda LLC, is pleased with the court ruling.

“We  worked very closely with the planning board and town attorney to be sure we stayed within what the zoning regulations allows us to do, so this appeal was surprising to us,” he wrote, in an email. “We share the court’s unhappiness over the appeal, the over two-year delay of the process, the exponential amount of cost for both us and the town of Camden and the unnecessary use of the court’s time.

He added that the decision allows Breda to finish the process.

“Bryant's complaints, including concerns of traffic and noise, are something we have given thought to as well since we don't want to do anything that would negatively impact our guests,” he wrote. “Therefore, of course, our new plans reflect a reduction of current traffic and noise through better infrastructure and by addressing a few other smaller issues, making the inn and restaurant a better neighbor. As we said in the hearings, if something were to disturb our neighbors, it would certainly disturb our guests and we would rectify it immediately. Guests expect nothing less when they spend up to $1,500 for a night.   

“We will continue to review the court's ruling and discuss with the town attorney, our own attorney, Stephen Hanscom, and PHI Home + Design on how to move forward. 

“We love Camden and are proud of what we have achieved. We realize every day that we could not have accomplished this without the help of the community. We continue to do our best to be a good neighbor and active members of this town.”

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657