Opinion ID: 2301453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LURC's Third Procedural Order

Text: [¶ 11] FBM argues that LURC violated the Third Pre-hearing Procedural Order because the staff's deliberation notebook contained a series of recommendations on the key issues that lead to the conclusion that [LURC] should grant the permit. FBM's arguments are unpersuasive. In particular (1) the Third Pre-hearing Procedural Order applied to the July 7, 2010, deliberation, not to the December 1, 2010, deliberation; (2) even if the Third Pre-hearing Procedural Order applied to the December 1, 2010, deliberation, there was no violation because the staff's deliberation notebook did not provide LURC with a recommendation as to whether to grant or deny the permit; and (3) FBM has not shown that it was prejudiced by any violation of the Third Pre-hearing Procedural Order, see Town of Jay v. Androscoggin Energy, LLC, 2003 ME 64, ¶ 9, 822 A.2d 1114.