Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.6 <br /> <br />Although no large-scale development occurred, the land next <br />to the Roop's home was rezoned to allow the larger retail build- <br />ings. Roop filed a complaint asking the court to declare the new <br />district invalid, arguing that the city had not followed the law <br />with regard to community input. Roop also argued that his prop- <br />erty rights had been affected adversely. <br />The city asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Roop <br />did not have standing to bring his complaint, and the request was <br />granted. Roop appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court for fur- <br />ther proceedings. <br /> <br />The court had to review the decision of the lower court for an ' <br />error of law. The lower court had determined that Roopdid not <br />have standing-the right to bring a claim-against the city, so the <br />appeals court reviewed the record to see if Roop met the condi- <br />tions for standing. <br />The court found that, in the context of disputes involving an <br />abutting landowner, the tbreshold for determi.L-llng standing was <br />minimal. Here, Roop challenged the validity of the process that <br />the city used to involve citizens in the amendment of the compre- <br />hensive plan-which was intended to ensure "meaningful" public <br />participation. The denial of meaningful participation as mandated <br />by the law resulted in an injury, and the injury was intensified for <br />abutting landowners. The court stated that Roop "clearly" had <br />standing to challenge the amendment. <br />The city had even notified Roop and other abutting landown- <br />ers of the proposed change and related hearings individually, <br />which was indicative that those lai"ldowners had a heightened in- <br />terest in being included in the process. The appeals court reversed <br />the decision of the lower court, and it returned the case to that <br />court for additional deliberation. <br /> <br />See also: Sproul v. Town of Boothbay Harbor, 2000 ME 30, 746 <br />A.2d 368 (Me. 2000). <br /> <br />See also: Fitzgerald v. Baxter State Park Authority, 385 A.2d 189, <br />11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) '1513 (Me. 1978). <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />155 <br />