Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

I I :1 I I i I i I '1 I I I I I I I I g.g, April 10, 2003 -- Page 5 action had to be taken. He noted the restaurant had several umbrellas with the company logo printed on them. Bartley was notified the umbrellas constituted signs, and most of them had to be removed so as to comply with the ordinance. Bartley employees spray painted the umbrellas in an effort to come into compliance. Nonetheless, Demers still considered the restaurant was in viola- tion. In August, he forwarded the matter to the town attorney, who commenced an. enforcement action. In October 2002, Demers sent the town manager a memo recommending Bartley's liquor license application be withheld until the sign problem was remedied. The town selectmen then voted not to renew the license. However, the State of Maine issued a temporary liquor license, expiring on Feb. 23, 2003. The town clerk notified Bartley the matter would be continued until Feb. 11, 2003, and the liquor license would be issued if the signs were in compli-. ance. Further, Bartley had to apply for permits for the two sig-ns attached to the building and pay the required fee. . Bartley Fried the appropriate applications and paid the fees. The state re- newed the liquor license. B & B sued, demanding a court order to restrain town officials from en- forcing the ordinance. DECISION: Order denied. The court refused to stop the town from enforcing the ordinance. The court noted there were four well-established criteria that B & B had to establish before a court order would issue: 1) B & B would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted; 2) the injury outweighed any harm which granting injunctive relief would inflict on the town; 3) B & B had exhib- Red a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and (4) the public interest would not be adversely affected by granting the injunction. This case was being heard in February, and the umbrellas would not' be installed until warmer months. Thus, there was only a threat or possibility that Bartley's would suffer irreparable harm in May and' the snmmer months be- cause the signs had to be removed. Bartley's failed to show how it would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted. Citation: B&B Coastal Enterprises Inc. v. Demers, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, No. 03-05-P-C (2003). see .also: McDonough v. U.S. Department of Labor, 646 ESupp. 478 (1986). see also: Massachusetts Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities v. Civil Defense agency, 649 F, 2d 71 (I981). Now ILENEW your subscription ONLINE at www, quinlan.com 315