Supreme Court upholds denial of MDI pier permit application

BAR HARBOR – Danger to seal pups and seabirds was cited this week in a Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision to deny a woman a permit to build a 90-foot pier off Mount Desert Island’s northwestern tip.

Resident Anne Hannum first applied to build the long pier, ramp and float combination off her property on Long Cove near Indian Point in 1999, and the case has been making a slow journey between the Board of Environmental Protection, the Maine Superior Court and the state supreme court ever since.

In what may be the pier’s last stand, the majority of justices has found there was enough evidence to uphold the BEP’s 2001 and 2003 decisions to deny Hannum her pier. Chief Justice Leigh Saufley, writing the majority opinion, cited possible environmental harm in the decision.

“The Board properly performed its fact-finding function when it weighed the evidence presented and determined that Hannum’s dock, and the boating that would result from the dock’s use, would cause harm to the seals and terns in the cove,” Saufley wrote.

This latest decision, though, may not be the end of the case, according to Hannum’s attorney.

“We may ask that the Law Court reconsider its decision,” attorney Ed Bearor of Bangor said Wednesday. “I’m very disappointed. The process is mystifying in that it could have created such a controversy. Bear in mind that there’s 1,200 feet of frontage here and 62 acres of land. It strikes me as odd, to say the least, that you couldn’t have a dock.”

Bearor had left a message for his client with the court’s decision, but said he had not yet heard from her.

Others said they were relieved by the news, including Friends of Acadia, a nonprofit group that was one of several intervenors in the court case.

“We’re very pleased with the outcome,” Stephanie Clement, FOA conservation director, said. “It was a very long process, but we’re glad that the Maine Supreme Court recognized the value of seal pupping areas around Mount Desert Island.”

The court’s decision, however, was not unanimous. Justice Donald Alexander wrote in a dissenting opinion that there were many flaws in the BEP’s findings, including reliance on speculation rather than evidence of potential harm to wildlife. Hannum also may have been treated unfairly by the BEP, he said.

“Nothing in the Board’s findings indicates any objective criteria to support the disparate treatment given Hannum’s application compared to the numerous dock construction projects that, at the time and since, were being approved under the permit by rule process,” Alexander wrote.

Alexander was joined by Howard Dana in dissenting. Saufley, Robert Clifford, Susan Calkins, Jon Levy and Warren Silver were in the majority.

Peggy Bensinger, assistant attorney general, argued the BEP’s case before the high court, and said the decision likely will set a precedent.

“We’re glad that the Law Court agrees that the uses of a proposed structure and the impacts of those uses on the environment can be considered under the natural resources protection act,” she said. “I think that’s the most important thing about this case.”