Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 2 <br />an opportunity to be heard, are ex parte communications that implicate <br />the due process rights of the excluded party. Whether the ex parte com- <br />munications actually violate due process depends on a number of fac- <br />tors, said the court, including: the gravity of the ex parte communica- <br />tions; whether the contacts may have influenced the ultimate decision; <br />whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the <br />ultimate decision; whether the contents of the communications were un- <br />known to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond; <br />and whether vacation of the decision and remand for new proceedings <br />would serve a useful purpose. <br />Applying those factors to the case at hand, the court held that the ex <br />parte e-mail at issue did not violate the abutting landowner's due pro- <br />cess rights because: the gravity of the e-mail was limited since the e-mail <br />asserted that the Board had already made its selection of its independent <br />peer reviewer; the role of the e-mail in the approval of the conditional <br />use peiniit was limited since the abutters had the full opportunity to re- <br />spond to both the selection of and findings by the Board's independent <br />peer reviewer; and vacating the Board's decision and remanding with <br />instructions to hire a new independent peer review would not serve any <br />purpose because the Board ultimately found Berwick Iron's air emis- <br />sions expert credible and sufficient evidence in the record supported the <br />Board's finding. <br />See also: Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 80 S. Ct. 1502, 4 L. Ed. 2d <br />1307 (1960). <br />See also: In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973). <br />• See also: Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal <br />Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 547, 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2676 <br />(D.C. Cir. 1982). <br />See also: Lane Const. Corp. v. Town of Washington, 2008 ME 45, 942 <br />A.2d 1202 (Me. 2008). <br />Case Note: <br />The court also found that evidence supported the Board's findings that the <br />Berwick Iron's application for the conditional use permit for the metal shredder <br />met the Town ordinance's air emissions standards and noise standards. <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />