Opinion ID: 1951680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dep

Text: [¶ 6] We first address whether the DEP had standing to appeal the Board's decision in this matter. The Department did not appear, personally or through filings, at the ZBA hearings. Despite this failure, the trial court found that liberally construed ... the Department was a participant in the proceedings, because a DEP employee had participated before the Planning Board and the DEP had sought reconsideration of the ZBA's decision. Because of the DEP's failure to participate in the variance proceedings before the ZBA in any way, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion. [¶ 7] Absent a specific statutory authorization, a failure to participate in the proceeding from which the appeal is taken is fatal to the claimed right to maintain the appeal. Any party may take an appeal ... to Superior Court from any order, relief or denial in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80B. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2691(3)(G)(1996) (emphasis added). Party status for purposes of section 2691 is defined by a conjunctive two-pronged test: first, the person must have participated before the board; and, second, the person must have made a showing of a particularized injury. [3] See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶ 8, 703 A.2d 844, 847; Pride's Corner Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Westbrook Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 398 A.2d 415, 417 (Me.1979). [¶ 8] The DEP's actions in this case did not constitute participation in the ZBA hearings. Although the DEP provided written comments to the Planning Board at a preliminary phase of the request for permission to build a marina, those comments were related to matters before the Planning Board and not to Dunn's subsequent request for a variance from the ZBA. The DEP's 80B count challenged the legality of the ZBA's grant of a variancenot the Planning Board's denial of a use permit. The written comments to the Planning Board, not made during the proceedings from which the appeal has been taken, are insufficient to constitute participation by the DEP for purposes of conferring party status. Cf. Jaeger v. Sheehy, 551 A.2d 841, 842 (Me.1988) (pre-hearing conversations by an abutting landowner to a member of the board were insufficient to qualify as participation). Contrary to the DEP's arguments, the statutory framework of the shoreland zoning law does not provide DEP with the status of an essential party, thereby conferring standing despite a failure to participate before the ZBA.