In some cases, the "potential for particularized injury" is sufficient for an abutter to have standing, Fryeburg Water Co. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, ¶¶ 11-12, 893 A.2d 618 [quotation marks omitted), as when an abutter proposes a landfill, In re Lappie, 377 A.2d 441, 441, 443 (Me. 1977); a sludge-disposal operation, Pride's Corner Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Westbrook Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 398 A.2d 415, 418 (Me. 1979); a competing convenience store, Christy's Realty Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Kittery, 663 A.2d 59, 61-62 (Me. 1995); or the installation of self-service gas pumps at a store, Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048,1051 (Me. 1982), overruled in parton other grounds by Norris Fam. Assocs., LLC, 2005 ME 102, ¶¶ 12-13, 879 A.2d 1007. [¶16] A business competitor may have standing if it was a party to the proceedings and the proposed governmental action would result in substantial detriment to the competitor and adversely affect its business.
As a result, there is a minimal threshold to demonstrate a particularized injury and establish standing. Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2010 ME 78, ¶ 14, 2 A.3d 284; see Fryeburg Water Co. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, ¶ 11, 893 A.2d 618 (noting that abutting property owners need only allege a potential for particularized injury to have standing). Mumford has alleged a particularized injury through his complaints about stray bullets entering his property.
When the appealing party is an abutting landowner, the requirements to establish this element of aggrievement are “minimal”; an abutter need only assert a “reasonable allegation of a potential for particularized injury ... to establish the real controversy required for adjudication in a court.” Sahl, 2000 ME 180, ¶ 8, 760 A.2d 266 (quotation marks omitted); see Fryeburg Water Co. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, ¶ 12, 893 A.2d 618 (requiring an abutter to show only “a relatively minor adverse consequence” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶ 16] As the Superior Court noted, the general rule is that “a party is not aggrieved by a judgment granting the relief requested in his pleadings.”
When the appealing party is an abutting landowner, the requirements to establish this element of aggrievement are "minimal"; an abutter need only assert a "reasonable allegation of a potential for particularized injury . . . to establish the real controversy required for adjudication in a court." Sahl, 2000 ME 180, ¶ 8, 760 A.2d 266 (quotation marks omitted); see Fryeburg Water Co. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, ¶ 12, 893 A.2d 618 (requiring an abutter to show only "a relatively minor adverse consequence" (quotation marks omitted)). [¶ 16] As the Superior Court noted, the general rule is that "a party is not aggrieved by a judgment granting the relief requested in his pleadings."
" Id. If the appealing party is an abutter, she "need only allege a potential for particularized injury to satisfy the standing requirement." Fryeburg Water Co. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, ¶ 11, 893 A.2d 618. DAMARISCOTTA'S ORDINANCE REGARDING APPEALS
As a result, there is a minimal threshold to demonstrate a particularized injury and establish standing. Friends ofLincoln Lakes v. Town of Lincoln, 2010 ME 78, 114, 2 A.3d 284; see Fryeburg Water Co. v.Town of Fryeburg, 2006 ME 31, % 11, 893 A.2d 618 (noting that abutting property owners need only allege a potential for particularized injury to have standing). Mumford has alleged a particularized injury through his complaints about stray bullets entering his property.