The opinion
Po OS Rie
t
STATE OF MAINE Hicnuy A. Dagjaiuin SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss an Civil Action
FER 14 2000 Docket No. CV-98-253
Clerk cf Courts NM-KEN -a)Hloaece
C. H. SPURLING, Kenncuec County |
Plaintiff
Vv. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
THE CITY OF GARDINER, JUDGMENT
Defendant
The plaintiff seeks a summary judgment on count I of his complaint, in
which he requests a declaratory judgment that two ordinances of the City of
Gardiner are impermissibly vague and violate the first and fourteenth
amendments. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
The complete administrative history of this case is not clear!
. The allegations
in the plaintiff’s complaint and statement of material facts outline some the
plaintiff's dealings with the City’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC). Apparently, one of the plaintiffs requests for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was approved by the HPC and one request was tabled.
See Pl.’s Mem. at 6-7; Pl.s’ Complaint, {{ 3-9; Pl.s’ SMF, {J 3-4, 6-7. The plaintiff did
not appeal the actions of the CEO or the HPC to the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals.
See Pl.s’ SMF, Ex. D; see also Decision and Order, 1/26/99. The courts are generally
unwilling “to interrupt the administrative process until that process is complete.”
See Annable v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 507 A.2d 592, 595 (Me. 1986). This matter
1The defendant argues that the plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies but no
facts supporting that argument appear in the statement of disputed facts. See Def.’s Mem. at 6-7.
involves disputed facts as well as the construction of the challenged ordinances. See
Churchill v. S.A.D. # 49 Teachers Ass’n, 380 A.2d 186, 190 (Me. 1977); 14 M.R.S.A. §
5954 (1980); compare Pl.’s SMF, { 14 with Def.’s SDMF, 3.
The defendant has raised an issue of material fact regarding the validity of the
challenged ordinances. See, e.g., Def.’s SDMF 1-4; Brophy v. Town of Castine, 534
A.2d 663, 664 (Me. 1987); Danish Health Club, Inc. v. Town of Kittery, 562 A.2d 663,
666 (Me. 1989).
The entry is
The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Date: February 10, 2000
Nancy Mills VY
Justice, Superior Court
Date-Filed __9/30/98 Kennebec Docket No. CV98-253
. County
Action Declaratory Judgment he’ ¢
Pe a ‘
) mee
C.H. Spurling vs: City of Gardiner :
Plaintiff?s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney
C.H. Spurling, Esq. Pro Se John Bobrowiecki, Jr., Esq.
Two Church Street 251 Water St., PO Box 120
Gardiner, Maine 04345 Gardiner, Maine 04345
Date of
Entry
10/5/98 Complaint, filed. s/Spurling, Esq. (filed 9/30/98)
Pretrial Scheduling Statement and Jury Demand mailed to atty.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed. s/Spurling, Esq.
> Proposed Preliminary Injunction, filed.
10/8/98 Notice of acknowledgement of receipt of complaint and summons filed.
s/Spurling,Esq.
10/16/98 Plaintiff's Exhibits A-O in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
filed.
Notice of setting for , Late LEE
Sentio ditorneys of racarc
10/26/98 Answer to Complaint, filed. s/Bobrowiecki, Esq.
Certificate of Service, filed.
10/26/98 Hearing had on motion for preliminary injunction, Hon. Donald Marden
Presiding. (tape #451)
C.H. Spurling, Esq. present for Pltf. (himself) and John Bobrowiecki, Esq.
present for City of Gardiner.
Court takes matter under advisement and to issue order.
11/3/98 Pretrial Scheduling Statement, filed. s/Spurling, Esq.
1/13/99 Letter regarding case being under advisement filed. s/Spurling,Esq.
1/26/99 DECISION AND ORDER, Marden, J.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant, City of Gardiner, may not interfere with,
> obstruct or request any sanction against Plaintiff for identifying his
place of business with no more than three signs; this Order will remain in
effect only until final action by the Gardiner Historis Preservation
Commission and the completion of appeal from a decision of the Code Enforce-
ment Officer or the Historis Preservation Commission to the Board of Appeals
in accordance with section 3204.h2.c. of the city ordinance, if any;