judicial capacity must conduct its review de novo, absent explicit language to the
contrary in the municipal ordinance).
At issue in this case is the Town Council's application of § 140-33(D)(16) to
Windham Properties' quarry application. Section 140-33(D)(l6) addresses
ground vibrations caused by mineral extraction activities and mandates that:
No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments at or at any point beyond any lot line.
Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(l6). After taking evidence over the course of
eight public hearings, the Town Council interpreted § 140-33(D)(l6) to require
"the measurement of vibration at the nearest inhabitable structure not owned or
controlled by the owner of the quarry." R. at 284-85. Vibrations would be
acceptable under § 140-33(D)(l6) as long as they met the USBM's safe blasting
limits for the protection of structures. 1
The Town Council also found that the application satisfied § 14G-33(D)(16)
in part because the Planning Board had established a vibration limi t of 2.0 ppv at
the quarry's lot line and evidence showed that blasting operations were likely to
meet this standard. However, the Town Council did not itself determine whether
the proposed vibrations would be discernible at the lot line, as required by the
plain language of the ordinance. This failure resulted directly from the Town
Council's erroneous construction of the ordinance, which itself resulted from the
council members' inability to agree on a definition of "discernible."
The record shows that on September 9,2008 the Town Council did make
an attempt to determine whether the quarry proposal would comport with § 140
1The Court notes that the USBM safeguards appear in the state performance standards for quarries, 38 M.R.S.A. § 490-Z(l4)(I). 6 33(D)(l6)'s injunction against discernible ground vibrations, but the members
could not agree on objective criteria by which to judge discernibility. R. at 1534
51. A motion was made to explicitly adopt the DEP standards used by the
Planning Board, but it was defeated. R. at 1542. Instead, the Town Council
passed a motion determining that "the ordinance requires the measurement of
vibration at the nearest inhabitable structure" and adopting the USBM limits "in
place of the DEP standards." R. at 1553-56. Passage of this motion precluded
further discussion of lot lines and effectively read the contentious word
"discernible" out of the ordinance.
Working from its faulty construction of § 140-33(D)(l6), the Town Council
found that the proposed quarry would produce ground vibrations compliant
with the USMB limits at structures. It also acknowledged the Planning Board's
approval of ground vibrations measuring 2.0 ppv at the quarry lot line.
However, the Town Council failed to independently consider whether the
proposed ground vibrations from the quarry would be discernible at the quarry's
lot line. 2 Because the Town Council's approval of Windham Properties'
application must be independent of the Planning Board's, the Town Council's
mere recognition of the Planning Board's conditions cannot cure the Town
Council's own failure to perform its duty.
The Court remands this matter to the Town Council so it may determine
whether ground vibrations from the proposed quarry will be discernible without
the aid of instruments at the quarry's lot line, in accordance with the plain
language of § 140-33(D)(l6). When doing so, the Town Council should take care
2 The Court does not reach the question of whether the Town Council could establish standards for ground vibrations at structures beyond a lot line in addition to enforcing the discernibility standard at the lot line as required by § 140-33(D)(l6). 7 to "state both the reasons for its decision and the underlying facts in order to
ensure effective judicial review." Sanborn v. Eliot, 425 A.2d 629, 630 (Me. 1981)
(citing Brown v. Town of Wells, 402 A.2d 57,58 (Me. 1979); Gashgai v. Board of
Registration in Medicine, 390 A.2d 1080, 1085 (Me. 1978)). The existing record may
provide adequate evidence, or the Town Council may in its quasi-judicial
capacity take limited new evidence on the standards by which it will judge
vibrations' discernibility at the lot line.
The entry is:
The Town Council's decision regarding the interpretation and application of Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(l6) to party-in-interest Windham Properties' quarry application is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Town Council for further proceedings to determine whether the proposed quarry will produce ground vibrations that are discernible at t u r ' lot line, consistent wi th this opinion.
8 Date Filed 10-22-08 Docket No. ~_-_0_8_---,-3_2 ~ County
Action 8_0_B~_A_P_P~EA_L _ MARGARET PINCHBECK THE TOWN OF WINDHAM LEON PRIDE WINDHAM PROPERTIES LLC - PII LINDA ROWE CARL RUSSELL NORTHEASTERN MOTEL BECKY HAGAR JUNE HAWKES HINDHAM CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT Ys.
Plaintiffs Attorney Defendant's Attorney
SC07T ANDERSON, ESQ. ERICA JOHANSON ESQ. (WINDHAM PROPERTIES) GORDON SMITH, ESQ. ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND, ME 04112-0586 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-08-032 ~t\( ' C LuV\- ~be,/J-DID MARGARET PINCHBECK, LEON PRIDE, LINDA ROWE, CARL RUSSELL, NORTHEASTERN MOTEL, BECKY HAGAR, JUNE '/ HAWKES, and WINDHAM CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT
The Petitioners appeal from the Windham Town Council's approval of
party-in-interest Windham Properties, LLC's application for a mineral extraction
permit. They claim that the Town Council erroneously interpreted Windham's
mineral extraction ordinance, applied the ordinance in an arbitrary manner,
reached conclusions not supported by substantial evidence on the record, and
did not make the findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to approve
the application.
BACKGROUND This case began in January 2006, when Windham Properties, LLC,
obtained a permit from the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
1 to operate a quarry in Windham, Maine. (R. at 63.) The proposed quarry would
occupy approximately 53.14 acres along Route 302 and Nash Road in a district
zoned for farm use. (R. at 257.) Residential homes, a commercial kennel, and
other businesses surround Windham Properties' land. (R. at 345, 851.)
Section 140-33 of the Town of Windham's Land Use Ordinance requires
quarry operations to be independently approved by both the Windham Planning
Board and the Windham Town Council. (R at 1680.) A prior application by
Windham Properties to operate a quarry on the property was denied by the
Town Council in January 2007. That decision was challenged and upheld.
WiJzdlU7I11 Properties LLC, v. TaWIl o/WindlJnIll, et al., AP-07-9 (Me. Super. Ct., Cum.
Cty., May 13, 2008) (Warren, J.). While that challenge was pending, Windham
Properties developed a revised plan that the Windham Planning Board approved
on August 27, 2007. (R. at 3.) The Planning Board conditioned its approval on
ground vibrations being limited to 2.0 inches per second peak particle velocity
(ppv) at the quarry's property line. (R. at 9,893.) The revised plan was submitted
to the Town Council on January 22, 2008. (Id.)
The Town Council, sitting in its quasi-judicial capacity, received evidence
and deliberated on the proposed quarry during eight public hearings held
between April 8, 2008, and August 12,2008. (R at 257, 1537-38.) On June 24,
2008, the Council heard the testimony of Andy McKown, Windham Properties'
expert on blasting-related vibration. (R. at 890-92.) Windham Properties retained
McKown "to guide the Council in a standard to apply to the vibration limits" set
in Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(16). This section reads:
No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments at or at any point beyond any lot line.
2 (R. at 1682.)
McKown's testimony reviewed the common methods of measuring
ground vibration, and cited heavily to a 1980 study conducted by the United
States Bureau of Mines (USBM). (R. at 898-900.) The study's purpose was to find
vibration limits that would protect residential structures, and the USBM
accomplished this by measuring blast-related vibration at different homes and
checking those homes for damage after each vibration event. (R. at 900-01.) The
USBM measured both the speed of the vibration, measured in ppv, and the
frequency of the vibration measured in hertz. (R. at 900.) From the study data the
USBM established limits incorporating both measurements to protect against
structural damage. (R. at 900-01.)
Based on the USBM's 1980 study, McKown urged the Town Council to
adopt the federal limits for protecting structures when evaluating the blasting
vibrations from the proposed quarry, and to measure those vibrations at the
homes nearest the quarry rather than at the lot lines. (R. at 901, 904.) Under the
initial phase of the proposed plan, McKown expected blasting to occur once or
twice per week over the course of a year. (R. at 919-20.)
McKown also testified to what different measures of ground vibration
would feel like to a human unaided by instruments. (R. at 901.) He stated that
humans perceive vibrations of 0.02 to 0.03 ppv, and they "become distinctly
perceptible at about .2 to .3 [ppv]." (R. at 901-02.) For illustration, vibrations of
0.1 ppv would be "equivalent to someone walking by inside a house," 0.2 to 0.4
ppv would be like a door slamming, and vibrations between 0.5 to 1.0 ppv would
be comparable to "somebody jumping inside a house." (R. at 902.) McKown's
characterizations of the different levels of ground vibration were supported by
3 D. Todd Coffin of Ransom Environmental Consultants, Inc., in a letter petitioner
Margaret Pinchbeck provided to the Town Council at that same meeting. (R. at
934-35.) In the letter, Coffin described ground vibrations as "noticeable" at 0.02
ppv, "troublesome" at 0.2 ppv, and "severe" at 0.7 ppv. (R. at 288, 1532.)
At the June 24th hearing the Town Council also heard the testimony of
David Tobin on the meaning of the word "discernible" in Windham, Me., Code
§ 140-33(D)(l6). (R. at 930.) Tobin, a member of the committee that had drafted
the ordinance, stated that the word was not meant to be synonymous wi th
"detectable." (R. at 930-31.) In his words, "[d]iscernible is to recognize or identify
as separate and distinct; in other words, can you tell the difference between that
blast and a ten-wheeler hitting a pothole ...." (R. at 931.)
Relying heavily on Tobin's and McKown's testimony, (R. at 1533-34,
1540-42, 1545, 1548-49, 1554,) the Town Council concluded in a 5-2 vote that
Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(l6) "requires the measurement of vibration at
the nearest inhabitable structure notowned or controlled by the owner of the
quarry, ... that the quarry shall, and must, meet the safe blasting vibration limits
set by the [USBM]," and that the quarry application complied with both the
ordinance and the 2.0 ppv limit set by the Planning Board. (R. at 284-85.) In its
deliberations, the Town Council expressly avoided defining the term
"discernible." (R. at 1533, 1536-37.)
On September 23,2008, the Town Council approved Windham Properties'
quarry application. The Petitioners subsequently appealed pursuant to M.R. Civ.
P. 80B. On that appeal, this Court found that the Town Council had committed a
legal error by interpreting the phrase "No vibration shall be produced which is
... discernible without the aid of instruments at or at any point beyond any lot
4 line" to mean that the quarry could not produce ground vibrations in excess of
the USBM's safe-blasting limits at the "nearest inhabitable structure not owned
or controlled by the owner of the quarry." Pinel/beck Vo TOUJIl of Wind/will, 2009
Me. Super. LEXIS 109, ** 9-10 (Sept. 8, 2009). This interpretation effectively
deleted the "discernibility" standard from the ordinance and precluded the
Council from determining whether the proposed quarry would produce
discernible ground vibrations at the quarry's lot line. [do The Planning Board's
condition imposing a 2.0 ppv limit at the lot line could not cure the error. [do at
* 10.
On September 8,2009, the case was remanded to the Town Council with
the instruction that it "determine whether ground vibrations from the proposed
quarry will be discernible without the aid of instruments at the quarry's lot line,
in accordance with the plain language of § 140-33(D)(l6)." [do at ** 10-11. The
Council was "to 'state both the reasons for its decision and the underlying facts
in order to ensure effective judicial review.'" [do at * 11 (quoting Snnbom Vo Town
of Eliot, 425 A.2d 629, 630 (Me. 1981)). In doing so the Council was given the
option of hearing new evidence or making its determination based on the
existing record. [d.
The Town Council again addressed Windham Properties' application and
the vibration standard at its October 13, 2009 meeting. (Minutes at 1, 3.) The
Council decided against taking new evidence, but did recei ve letters from the
attorneys for Windham Properties and the Petitioners, respectively. (Minutes at
6-7.) It also clarified that the relevant lot line was not that of the quarry, but
rather was the outer edge of a separate lot encircling the quarry. (Minutes at 6.)
5 This buffer lot and the quarry are essentially held under common ownership.
(Minutes at 6).
To structure its discussion, the Council outlined a three-step process for
the meeting. (Minutes at 7.) The first step was to define the word "discernible" as
used in the ordinance; the second step was to determine whether vibration
would or would not be discernible at the lot line; and the third step was "to
either re-approve or disapprove the quarry." (Minutes at 7.)
While attempting to define the term" discernible," council members
debated whether it referenced the source of vibration or the existence of
vibration itself. (Minutes at 7-10.) Under the "source" interpretation, the
ordinance would prohibit ground vibrations that an unaided human would both
perceive and clearly recognize as coming from blasting. (Minutes at 10.) The
"existence" interpretation would prohibit blasting if it creates ground vibrations
that an unaided human would detect at the lot line. (Minutes at 9-10.) In other
words, the Council questioned whether "discerning" a vibration means "you
know it happened ... [or] you know what caused it." (Minutes at 15.) After
referencing various definitions proposed by the parties through counsel, the
Town Council voted to define "discernible" as: "To detect with senses other than
vision, to recognize or identify as separate and distinct." (Minutes at 12-13.)
In step two the Council intended to determine whether ground vibrations
would or would not be discernible at the lot line. Examining both the quarry
application and the prior testimony of the parties' blasting experts, councilors
proposed levels of vibration that would be discernible under the ordinance.
(Minutes at 14-25.) In evaluating these levels, different councilors variously
asked whether the vibration would be detectable (Minutes at 14, 16), could be
6 identified by source (Minutes at 14-15, 20-21), or would be objectionable
(Minutes at 16, 19-20,25). Towards the end of the discussion one council
member summed up the operative definition of "discernible" as "above and
beyond background [vibration] to the point of being objectionable or annoying."
(Minutes at 25.) Shortly thereafter the Council adopted a motion stating:
Vibration is not discernible provided it is less than PPV 1 inch per second at the lot line based on Mr. McKown's testimony before the 'Windham Town Council on June 24,2008 and page 173 of the record.
(Minutes at 25.)
During this debate some council members expressed concern that the
blasting plan submitted with the quarry application did not conform to the
1.0 ppv threshold being discussed. (Minutes at 18-19, 21-23.) The application
showed that the vibration at the lot line would be 2.0 ppv in accordance with the
condition set by the Planning Board, and would be 1.0 ppv or less at the nearest
inhabited structures. (Minutes at 18-19, 21-23; R. at 168-69, 173.) Other
councilors interpreted the application to show that blast charges could possibly
be reduced to meet the ordinance, and that it was not the Council's job to
determine whether the plan would meet the ordinance as submitted. (Minutes at
18, 22.) In the words of one member, flit is not our responsibility. If we set the
requirement that it not be discernible ... and he violates that vibration level, he
would be subject to whatever." (Minutes at 18.) Ultimately, after adopting the
1.0 ppv vibration threshold the Council approved Order 09-147:
To approve findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to a proposed quarry on Nash Road. Adopting all prior conclusions and findings to include those adopted in the earlier approval of said Quarry and on 10-13-2009 in the Windham Town Council Meeting.
7 On November 12, 2009, the Petitioners filed a request for additional
review pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B. On this appeal, the Petitioners argue that
the Town Council's choice of the 1.0 ppv standard was arbitrary and capricious.
The Petitioners also claim that the Council was required to apply the ordinance
to the quarry application before re-approving the project, but failed todo so.
Finally, the Petitioners contend that the Town Council erroneously assumed that
vibrations were to be measured at the outer boundary of the buffer lot instead of
the quarry.
The respondent Town of Windham contends that the Town Council
interpreted the ordinance in a reasonable manner, and claims it was not required
to apply the ordinance to the application before approving the project.
Respondent Windham Properties adds that the Town Council cited substantial
evidence on the record to "rationally determine" that the quarry could meet the
standards of the ordinance. Windham Properties also defends the Council's
assumption that the relative point to measure ground vibrations was the
Petitioners' lot lines rather than the quarry lot line.
Under Windham's mineral extraction ordinance, the Windham Planning
Board and the Windham Town Council each must review and approve a quarry
application before mineral extraction operations may begin. This case began
when Windham Properties submitted a quarry application to the Town Council
after receiving approval from the Planning Board. The Town Council was to hold
a public hearing and independently determine whether the quarry operation
would "be performed subject to the conditions and safeguards set forth in" the
Town's Land Use Ordinance. Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(A). (R. at 1679.)
8 Windham Properties bore the burden of showing that its application met the
ordinance's standards. See Bodnck v. Tow7l O/Og7lllq7lit, 2006 ME 127, err 12,909
A.2d 620, 624 (subdivision applicants before planning board bore the burden of
showing that the proposal satisfied every requirement of the ordinance).
Section § 140-33(D)(l6) of the ordinance pertains to ground vibration and
states:
No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments at or at any point beyond any lot line.
Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(l6). (R. at 1682.) The Town Council never
determined whether the quarry proposal conformed to this requirement. Instead,
the Council departed from the ordinance's language and found that the
proposed quarry would produce ground vibrations that met the USBM's safe-
blasting guidelines at the closest inhabited structure not owned by the applicant.
Applying this USBM standard, the Town Council approved the application.
The approval was challenged, and on appeal this Court vacated the Town
Council's action because the Council had failed to determine whether the
application met the standards for ground vibration established by the ordinance.
The Court remanded the case to the Town Council so it could "determine
whether ground vibrations from the proposed quarry will be discernible without
the aid of instruments at the quarry's lot line, in accordance with the plain
language of § 140-33(D)(16)." Pinel/beck v. Tawil ojWindlInllZ, 2009 Me. Super.
LEXIS 109, ** 10-11 (Sept. 8,2009). On remand the Council interpreted § 140
33(D)(l6) of the ordinance and re-approved the quarry application.
On this appeal, the Court is asked to review the record before the Tmvn
Council "to determine if it abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or
9 made findings not supported by substantial evidence." Mills v. Town of Eliot, 2008
ME 134, err 5, 955 A.2d 258, 261. The Court "may affirm, reverse, or modify ... or
remand the case" to the Town Council "for further proceedings." M.R. Civ. P.
80B(c).
1. "Discernible" Ground Vibration
The interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance is a question of law that this
Court reviews de novo. Isis Development, LLC v. Tawil of Wells, 2003 ME 149, errerr 3,
3 n.4, 836 A.2d 1285, 1287, 1287 n.4. The Court "examine[s] the plain meaning of
the language of the ordinance, and ... construe[s] its terms reasonably in light of
the purposes and objectives of the ordinance and its general structure." Nergaard
v. Town of Westport Islalld, 2009 ME 56, err 12, 973 A.2d 735, 739 (quoting Ste'wnrt v.
Town of Sedgwick, 2002 ME 81, err 6, 797 A.2d 27, 29) (quotations omitted).
The purpose of Windham's mineral extraction ordinance is "to regulate
sand and gravel and other quarrying operations .... These regulations are
intended ... to minimize any adverse impact of such pit operations on adjacent
and nearby properties." Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(A). (R. at 1679.) The town
ordinance prohibits ground vibrations that are "discernible without the aid of
instruments at or at any point beyond any lot line." Windham, Me., Code § 140
33(D)(16). (R. at 1682.) While the terms of the ordinance encompass all aspects of
the quarry, the debate around this controversy has focused exclusively on
blasting. In an attempt to resolve the question and fashion a workable definition
of the word, the Town Council defined "discernible" as: "To detect with senses
other than vision, to recognize or identify as separate and distinct." (Minutes at
12-13.)
10 This definition is reasonable and facially valid. It embraces the plain
meaning of the vvord "discernible" while effectuating the ordinance's purpose.
The ordinance aims to protect residents' use and enjoyment of their properties
while still allowing extractive operations. The Town Council's definition
balances these goals by recognizing that ground vibrations can be perceived in
many ways, but only become objectionable when their impact exceeds that of
other distractions inherent in daily life.
The Council determined that ground vibrations below 1.0 ppv at the lot
line are indistinct from other common ambient vibrations, and are thus
indiscernible within the meaning of § 140-33(D)(16). (Minutes at 25.) The Council
cited the testimony of the applicant's blasting expert, Andrew McKown.
(Minutes at 25.) Mr. McKown stated that vibrations in the range of 1.0 ppv would
be comparable to someone jumping inside a house. (R. at 901-02.) This
interpretation of the ordinance honors the plain meaning of the word
"discernible" and protects the interests of town residents while not being so
unduly restrictive as to prevent all extractive operation. See Davis v. SBA Tmuers
II, LLe, 2009 ME 82,
prohibit an allowed use).
After defining the ordinance, the Town Council voted to re-approve the
application before it. (Minutes at 25.) During discussion, the Council determined
that the quarry could meet the 1.0 ppv standard based on the applicant's blast
plan. (Minutes at 22-23.) The blast plan shows that ground vibrations can be
controlled by altering charge sizes and blasthole depths, and predicts maximum
ground vibrations of 0.56 ppv at a distance of 500 feet. (R. at 168, 173.)
Furthermore, the application affirmatively states that all "blasts will be sized to
11 meet vibration requirements at the site property lines." (R. at 9.) This evidence
adequately supports the Town Council's decision to approve the application. The
Council's judgment is both based on substantial evidence and a correct
interpretation of the law, and this Court will not disturb it. See Martin v. City of
Lewisto7l, 2008 ME 15, £[ 11, 939 A.2d 110, 114 (citing P/lf1ialJ v. To((m of Fayette,
2005 ME 20, <[ 8, 866 A.2d 863, 866).
2. The Relevant Lot Line
The property containing the proposed quarry is owned by Windham
Properties, LLC. A separate buffer lot owned by Peter J. Busque and / or Busque
Construction Co., Inc. surrounds the quarry property. Peter Busque appears to
control both Busque Construction Co. and Windham Properties, effectively
placing both the quarry lot and buffer lot under his ownership and control. The
Town Council assumed that the outer boundary of the buffer lot was the "lot
line" at which discernible ground vibrations are prohibited. (Minutes at 6.) It did
so in part because Mr. Busque had recorded a noise easement in favor of
Windham Properties. (Minutes at 6; R. at 437-38.)
The Petitioners claim that this was an erroneous assumption because the
ordinance prohibits discernible ground vibrations at every lot line and provides
no mechanism to waive compliance with the requirement, and because the
easement only applies to noise. Respondent Windham Properties counters that
this issue has not been preserved for appeal, that the Petitioners lack standing to
assert this claim, and that the Town Council's interpretation was reasonable.
"An issue is considered raised and preserved for appeal 'if there is
sufficient basis in the record to alert the court and any opposing party to the
existence of that issue.'" Wells v. Port/mid Yacht Club, 2001 ME 20, 915, 771 A.2d
12 371,373 (quoting Fnrley v. Tawil ofWnslIbllnI, 1997 ME 218,
349). The Petitioners have not cited any portion of the record to show that this
particular issue was raised before the Town Council. The Petitioners did not raise
the issue in their prior appeal, nor did they argue it to the Council after remand.
Casual inspection of the record reveals that Margaret Pinchbeck briefly
raised the issue in her comments at the Public Hearing held on July 8, 2008. (R. at
1014.) The only other time the issue appears to have been raised was at the
deliberative session the Council held on October 13, 2009 after remand. (Minutes
at 6.) These two brief instances in the record were not sufficient to alert the Town
Council and the respondents to the issue of whether the quarry boundary or the
buffer-lot boundary were the relevant point of measurement. The Petitioners
may not raise the issue at this late stage.
Even if the issue has been preserved for appeal, the Petitioners do not
have standing to assert it. To have standing, the Petitioners "must (1) have
appeared before the board of appeals; and (2) be able to demonstrate a
particularized injury as a result of the board's action." Wells, 2001 ME 20,
at 373 (quoting Sproul v. TOWIl of Boot!Jl7(7y Hnrbor, 2000 ME 3D,
371) (quotations and citation omitted). Proper application of Windham's ground
vibration ordinance should ensure that the Petitioners will not suffer any
discernible vibrations on any part of their property. This will result regardless of
whether the standard is applied to the boundary of the quarry or the buffer lot.
Given that the Petitioners will experience de l11illi11lis inconvenience regardless of
how the issue is decided, they lack standing to appeal the matter.
13 The entry is:
The Town Council's decision regarding the interpretation and application of Windham, Me., Code § 140-33(D)(16) to party-in-intere quarry application is affirmed.
DATE:
14 Date Filed 10-22-08 CUMBERLAND County Docket No AP-08-32
. • Action 80_B_A_P_P_E_A_I_" _ MARGARET PINCHBECK THE TOWN OF WINDHAM LEON PRIDE WINDHAM PROPERTIES LLC - PII LINDA Rm';E CARL RUSSELL NORTHEASTERN MOTEL BECKY HAGAR JUNE HAWKES WINDHAM CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT YS.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
, SC07T ANDERSON, ESQ. ERICA JOHANSON ESQ. (WINDHAM PROPERTIES) GORDON SMITH, ESQ. NATALIE BURNS ESQ (TOWN OF WINDHAM) ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND, ME 04112-0586
Date of Entry