By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

Hotel Bridgton cleared another hurdle when Maine Superior Court Justice Thomas R. McKeon affirmed the town’s Appeals Board and Planning Board decisions to approve the construction at the former dowel mill site bordering Bacon and Kennard Streets.

Although petitioners (the Neighbors) had 21 days to file an appeal, they shortly thereafter filed, sending the case to Maine Supreme Court. 

“Time will tell,” developer Justin McIver of Main Eco Homes responded Tuesday regarding the appeal. “We have felt strongly that this is a good project. We were also pleased to see that the judge required no oral arguments and made a quick decision.”

In August 2020, Justice McKeon granted the petitioners’ motion to “alter or amend the judgment.” Specifically, the judge asked planners to determine whether any work in the Stream Protection Zone is “filling” as described in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. All other aspects of the Hotel Bridgton project approved by planners “remained in place.”

Justice McKeon noted that the court previously found that the statute “unambiguously bars ‘filling’ in the Stream Protection District” and the ordinance does not contain a definition of “filling.”

In November 2020, planners defined “filling” as “something used to fill a cavity, container or depression” and found this definition of filling “was in harmony with the ordinances as a whole.” Planners found that the project involved a “re-contoured” slope using existing soils and imported materials. There was no depression that would be filled by the proposed work.

Justice McKeon noted that the review of administrative decision-making is “deferential” and “limited.” He added that Superior Court reviews a local agency’s decision for abuse of discretion, errors of law and findings of fact not supported by the evidence.

“The court interprets an ordinance for its plain meaning and construes its terms reasonably in light of the purposes and objectives of the ordinance and its general structure,” Justice McKeon wrote in his decision. “An ordinance may not be interpreted in such a way to read a provision out of existence or to render it surplusage. If an ordinance is clear on its face, the court will look no further than its plain meaning.”

The Neighbors argued that increases in elevation proposed by the Hotel Bridgton plan are evidence that “filling” will occur within the Stream Protection District (SPD). They also pointed to planners’ acknowledgement that materials would be “imported” into the SPD.

“Although the Neighbors’ argument may support a finding that there was ‘filling’ in the Stream Protection District, the Planning Board was not compelled to come to the same conclusion,” Justice McKeon wrote. “The court finds that the Planning Board’s interpretation of the ordinance is reasonable. They employed a definition of the term ‘filling’ that meets the term’s common usage. Their interpretation fits with the overall purpose of the ordinance to allow specific uses allowed within the Stream Protection that would be impossible if there was no ability to recontour toward the landscape.”

Justice McKeon also noted that there is no provision banning “imported” materials.

“Deferring to the Planning Board’s factual findings, the Planning Board did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the activity in the Stream Protection District did not constitute ‘filling.’ The court finds the Neighbors’ remaining arguments to be unpersuasive,” the judge wrote. “The court also declines the Neighbors’ invitation to revisit any of the other issues raised in the original appeal. The Planning Board’s decision is affirmed.”