Opinion ID: 2446086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing to Appear Before the Board

Text: [¶ 9] Although our decision rests on our holding that Friends had no standing to bring the 80B action in the Superior Court, we address the court's alternative holding upholding the Board's dismissal, in order to clarify the requirements for standing to appear before a municipal board of appeals. In evaluating the town's actions, we review directly the decision of the tribunal of original jurisdiction, which in this case is the Board because it conducted fact-finding on the standing issue. Nergaard v. Town of Westport Island, 2009 ME 56, ¶ 11, 973 A.2d 735, 739. The decision to deny standing to Friends is reviewed for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. [¶ 10] A municipality may give a board of appeals the power to hear any appeal by any person, affected directly or indirectly. 30-A M.R.S. § 2691(4) (2009). `Person' means an individual, corporation, partnership, firm, organization or other legal entity. 30-A M.R.S. § 2001(14) (2009). [T]he question of whether a party has standing to bring an administrative appeal depends on the language of the governing ordinance. See Nergaard, 2009 ME 56, ¶ 12, 973 A.2d at 739. [¶ 11] Here, the Lincoln Code provides that an appeal may be taken by an aggrieved party, Lincoln, Me., Code § 1313.15(G)(3)(a)(1), and defines an aggrieved party to include a person or group of persons who have suffered particularized injury, id. § 1313.16(B). In a recent decision interpreting an ordinance containing identical language, we held that to establish standing the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that he or she had party status at the administrative proceedings, but, in addition, that he or she has suffered a particularized injury or harm. Nergaard, 2009 ME 56, ¶ 16, 973 A.2d at 740.
[¶ 12] Friends bore the burden of proving that it met the definition of an aggrieved party. See id. ¶ 14, 973 A.2d at 739. Because matters before a local board of appeals are conducted in a fashion far less formal than court proceedings, an appellant need not have formally appeared as a party as long as it participated throughout the process. See Pride's Corner Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Westbrook Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 398 A.2d 415, 417 (Me.1979). [¶ 13] Friends has not shown participation throughout the process. The Board requested that Friends show that it or some predecessor had participated before the Planning Board. As the court observed, Friends did not identify a single continuous participating member, and the minutes of the meeting do not identify any Friends members participating. Although a number of people connected to Friends appear to have attended the Board hearing, none of them stepped forward to state that they had participated in the Planning Board meeting as members of or on behalf of Friends. Under those circumstances, the Board did not err in finding insufficient evidence of participation. [1] Because participation was not shown, we need not address the Board and Evergreen's argument that an unincorporated entity cannot be a party before a board.
[¶ 14] To establish standing before the Board, similar to seeking judicial review in an 80B action, Friends must also demonstrate a particularized injury. See Nergaard, 2009 ME 56, ¶ 16, 973 A.2d at 740. A particularized injury occurs when a judgment or order adversely and directly affects a party's property, pecuniary, or personal rights. Id. ¶ 18, 973 A.2d at 740. Users of affected property may have standing, see, e.g., In re Int'l Paper Co., 363 A.2d 235, 238-39 (Me.1976) (finding organizations to be aggrieved parties under the relevant statute because members breathed the air that would likely be affected by the proposed development), but the party's injury must be distinct from that suffered by the public at large, Nergaard, 2009 ME 56, ¶ 18, 973 A.2d at 740. There is a minimal threshold for an abutting landowner. Id. ¶ 18, 973 A.2d at 740-41. Additionally, standing has been liberally granted to people who own property in the same neighborhood as the property that is subject to a permit or variance. Id. ¶ 18, 973 A.2d at 741. [¶ 15] Friends therefore could have established this element by pointing to a single member who owns property that abuts or is in close proximity to the affected land and who can allege a potential for particularized injury or who will suffer some injury to a pecuniary interest or personal right. Even with this low threshold, however, Friends failed to show a particularized injury because it identified no members who would be affected by the project in any way. [¶ 16] The Board gave Friends ample opportunity to submit some minimal evidence regarding its identity, participation, and interest, and Friends did not comply. The Board was not required to give Friends an additional opportunity, and did not err, abuse its discretion, or make findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record in holding that Friends had failed to demonstrate its status as an aggrieved party with a right to appear before the Board. [¶ 17] In conclusion, we affirm the dismissal of the action because Friends failed to demonstrate standing to bring an 80B appeal. Alternatively, Friends failed to show standing to appear before the Board. Because we affirm the judgment, we do not address the Board's additional argument that the court erred by reviewing evidence outside the record that was favorable to Friends. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.