MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 201 4 ME 103 Docket: Cum

- 13

- 467 & Cum

- 14

- 4 Submitted

On Briefs: July 1, 2014 Decided: August 7, 2014
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER , SILVER , MEAD, and GORMAN , JJ.

MARJORIE J. GETZ et al.

v. JANIS WALSH et al.
and
DAVID M. TOURANGEAU et al.

v. JANIS WALSH et al.
SILVER, J. [¶1] In these consolidated appeals , Marjorie J. Getz and David M. Tourangeau appeal from judgment s entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County , Wheeler, J. ) dismissing their petitions for judicial review pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 80C and 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001

- 11008 (2013) of two related administrative decisions: (1) an order of the Board of Environmental Protection (Board) summarily dismissing as unt imely Getz and Tourangeau’s appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection2 (Commissioner) granting Janis and Paul Walsh a permit to construct a pier on their property pursuant to the Natural Resources Protection Ac t, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480

- A to
480

- HH (2013) ; and (2) a decision of the Commissioner dismissing Getz and Tourangeau’s petition to revoke the Walshes’ permit. [¶2 ] Contrary to Getz and Tourangeau’s arguments on appeal, the Board did not err in concluding that G etz and Tourangeau were not “abutters ” entitled to
notice of the Walshes’ permit application pursuant to 2 C.M.R. 06 096 002 §§ 1(A), 14 (effective April 1, 2003). See Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Regulation Comm’n , 2012 ME 36, ¶ 28, 39 A.3d 74 ( “In reviewing an agency ’ s interpretation of its own rules, regulations, or procedures, we give considerable deference to the agency and will not set aside the agency ’ s interpretation unless the regulation or rule compels a contrary interpretation .” (quotation marks omitted) )

. Nor did the Superior Court abuse its discre tion in declining to apply the good cause exception we recognized in Keating v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Saco , 325 A.2d 521, 524 (Me. 1974) , to extend the time for appeal from the Commissioner ’s decision granting the Walshes’ permit application. See Viles v. Town of Embden , 2006 ME 107, ¶¶ 8

- 11, 13, 905 A.2d 298 (noting that we review a court’s application of the good cause exception for an abuse of discretion and identifying
factors to be con sidered). To the extent that Getz and Tourangeau challenge the Walshes’ title and the authority of the Walshes’ agent, they did not raise those3 arguments before the Board and therefore failed to properly preserv e those issues for appeal. See Clark v. Han cock Cnty. Comm’rs , 2014 ME 33, ¶ 22, 87 A.3d 712 (noting that issues not raised at the agency level are not preserved for appeal). [¶3 ] With respect to Getz and Tourangeau’s appeal from the Commissioner’s dismissal of their petition for revocation , the L egislature has given
the Commissioner sole discretion to decide whether to revoke permits. See
1 M.R.S. § 71(9

- A) (2013) ; 38 M.R.S. § 342(11

- B) (2013) ; Friedman v. Bd. of
Envtl. Prot. , 2008 ME 156, ¶ ¶ 13

- 16, 956 A.2d 97

. T he court thus properly analogize d this case to Friedman and did not err in dismissing Getz and Tourangeau’s appeal

. See 2008 ME 156, ¶ ¶ 1 3

- 16 , 956 A.2d 97

. We need not reach Getz and Tourangeau’s other arguments with respect to their petition for
revocation. The entry is: Judgment s affirmed.

On the briefs: Marjorie J. Getz, pro se appellant David M. Tourangeau, pro se appellant Mary E. Costigan, Esq., Bernstein Shur, Portland, for appellees Janis and Paul Walsh4 Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Thomas A. Harnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Margaret A. Bensinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Environmental Protection

Cumberland C o unty Superior Court docket numbers AP

- 13

- 27 and AP

- 13

- 37 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY