The Oxford Casino remained open Monday, despite a judge’s ruling that nullified a state permit needed for it to operate.

How long the casino will remain open is unclear.

Additional Photos

An artist's rendering of what the Oxford Casino would look like if all three phases of construction are completed.

The fate of the casino and its related businesses was in question Monday as officials from the state Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Environmental Protection met to discuss the implications of the Superior Court decision.

The DEP has 21 days to appeal the ruling. If it does not appeal, the casino will be operating without a permit, which opponents claim is illegal.

Steve Hinchman, attorney for the Androscoggin River Alliance and a group of residents who fought the siting of the casino and the decision to grant a permit for its first phase, said state law “expressly prohibits” the casino from operating without a permit.

“The judge’s order vacates the permit (and) remands the permit back to the DEP,” Hinchman said. Without a valid permit in place, he added, “they’re going to have to close their doors.” Hinchman said he will seek an injunction, if necessary, to stop the casino’s operations, if the Superior Court ruling is not appealed and the establishment continues to do business.

DEP officials declined to be interviewed about the ruling but issued a written statement saying the department “has no intention to pursue any closing of the casino, nor would past precedent indicate it would be appropriate to do so.”

DEP spokeswoman Samantha DePoy-Warren expressed the department’s disappointment with the ruling, which marks another chapter in the nearly year-and-a-half-long struggle for permitting approval for the casino.

“While we do not agree with the findings and stand behind our staff’s thorough and thoughtful initial review,” she wrote, the department “will act in accordance with the remand order and reopen the review process so that other available evidence that could be relevant can be additionally considered.”

The judge’s ruling sends the permit request back to the Board of Environmental Protection, a panel of gubernatorial appointees that makes rules for the agency and acts on major projects reviewed by DEP staff. How long the review might take was not immediately known.

The latest tussle over the casino’s future — as it exists now or under planned expansion — resulted from the ruling last week by Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy. She found in favor of the alliance, which argued that the BEP failed to comply with department permitting regulations for multi-phase projects. The regulations require that a permit for any phase of a project be approved only after reviewing all available evidence on the cumulative effects of the entire project.

The judge ruled that the BEP should not have granted the permit for the first phase of the project because such development projects cannot be segmented into smaller pieces in order to pass regulatory requirements.

“The Court is troubled,” Murphy wrote, “by the fact that the agency decision on appeal did not directly address” the issue of “compliance of the entire proposed development.”

The Attorney General’s Office also declined to be interviewed Monday and instead responded in a written statement saying that state officials are reviewing the Superior Court decision and will abide by its directives.

“While we are disappointed in the ruling and felt that the DEP and the Board of Environmental Protection acted properly, ” the statement continued, “we think it is important to note that the Superior Court did not find that the Oxford Casino in its present form poses any threat to the environment or violates any environmental laws or regulations.”

“Instead, the Superior Court has directed the DEP to review evidence that might have been submitted” by developers about “undefined, future phases of development and to determine if that future development meets the standards” of Maine regulations and law.

That sentiment was underscored in prepared statements released Monday afternoon by both the DEP and David Van Slyke of the firm Preti Flaherty in Portland, the attorney representing the developer in the legal action.

“This decision deals with certain technical aspects of one of the Oxford Casino’s DEP permits regarding project phasing under the Maine Site Location of Development Act,” Van Slyke noted in his statement. “The Court’s decision did not indicate in any way that the casino poses any environmental harm, and the decision does not require the casino to shut down.”

The alliance has opposed the casino because of alleged problems with its siting and sewage disposal. The size and location of the site, Hinchman said, is “too small and too close to ponds,” including Whitney, Hogan, Green and Mirror ponds in Oxford County. The casino in its present form — and especially in its full-blown expansion — will release “far too much sewage for that site,” he said.

“Our position is that this project is too big. This is truly the wrong place for a development of this magnitude,” he said. “This is stupid growth.”

Maine voters approved the casino in November 2010. It opened for business in early June. It is open every day around the clock and features 500 slot machines, a dozen table games including blackjack, poker, craps and roulette, a restaurant and bar.

The renewed scrutiny of the casino project marks yet another faceoff between the DEP and environmental activists.

In April 2011, questions were raised by Hinchman for the alliance about the appointment of DEP Commissioner Darryl Brown and his potential conflicts of interest in the post. Brown was the founder and president of Main-Land Development Consultants Inc., an engineering consulting firm based in Livermore Falls that assists business clients with state and local permitting and environmental surveys. He had represented a number of permit applicants in the past, including the Oxford casino, and in his capacity as commissioner would have participated in the review and decision-making on permit applications.

Under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency and the state Attorney General’s Office, which declared him “unqualified” to serve as commissioner, Brown resigned. He dismissed criticism that he might not be impartial regarding permit requests to the DEP. Both the EPA and the Maine DEP required that no more than 10 percent of a commissioner’s business could be tied to companies seeking permits, and Brown reportedly testified at his confirmation hearing that 25 percent to 35 percent of his company’s work involved such firms and companies.

Staff Writer North Cairn can be contacted at 791-6345 or at: ncairn@pressherald.com

Correction: This story was revised at 11:55 a.m., July 25, 2012, to state that David Van Slyke of the firm Preti Flaherty in Portland is the attorney representing the Oxford Casino developer in the legal action.