Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

February 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin the reopened hearing, but declined to present any further information to the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board affirmed its decision declaring the building hazardous, and continued the hearing with regard to the issue of disposition of the building. At the public hearing on the disposition of the Beal's building, Beal presented evidence, and was provided an opportunity to question the CEO and dispute his observations. Once again, at the close of the hear- ing, the Board unanimously concluded that the structure was a danger- ous building. With regard to disposition of the building, the Board ordered Beal to have a licensed plumber and a licensed electrician bring the building up to code, and required her to "repair and/or replace all structural members" by August 26, 2015. Beal appealed the Board's decision. Beal contended that the Board violated her due process rights in that the Board "denied her the op- portunity to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses; and to have an impartial fact -finder." The superior court rejected Beal's arguments and affirmed the deci- sion of the Board. Beal appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that Beal failed to dem- onstrate that she was denied due process or that she was subjected to a decision by a biased decision -maker. In so holding, the court explained that, when assessing whether an individual's due process rights have been violated, courts "must analyzed three distinct factors": (1) "the private interest that will be af- fected by the official action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Here, the court found there was "no dispute that declaring Beal's property a dangerous building affects an important private property interest or that the Town has an interest in limiting use of or eliminat- ing dangerous buildings." Thus, the court found only the second factor of the required analysis was in play: "whether Beal was afforded the process she was due, including `notice of the issues, an opportunity to beheard, the right to introduce evidence and present witnesses, the right to respond to claims and evidence, and an impartial fact -finder.' " Despite restrictions on Beal's cross-examination of witnesses at the first hearing, the court concluded that Beal was afforded the due pro- cess that she was due in that: even at the first hearing Beal had an op- 10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters