Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

~08 Page 8 -- July 25, 2003 Z.B That day, the planning board met with Route 12 and gave it a checklist for the site plan application. Route 12 was also advised the proposal would entail a major site plan review. There were other concerns raised about the proper status of Lawrence Road, which Route ~[2 intended to use as a private driveway. Route 12 submitted the proposal to the planning board on July 1, 2000. The planning board conducted hearings and, on Sept. 8, sent a letter to Route I2 indicating the proposal was rejected for the following reasons: 1) the plan was not accurate because the petitioner incorrectly assumed that Lawrence Road was its private property; 2) there was insufficient parking; and, 3) the driveway access approval was in question. On Sept. 25, 2000, the petitioner requested a rehearing from the planning board, but the board did not respond. Route 12's Sept. 25 letter also requested an appeal to the zoning board of adjustment. No town official responded to the requests. In late January 2001, Route 12 finally appealed the planmng board deci- sion of Sept. 8. The town asked the court to dismiss the appeal because it was f~led well after the 30-day statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, deciding that board's decision was ambiguous as to whether the denial was based on planning regulations or zoning issues. The court found that the ambi- guity entitled the petitioner to zoning board of adjustment review and the board in fact never responded to its appeal. Thus, there was not an adequate decision from the town to start the statute of limitations. Acting on Route 12's al3peal, the lower court conducted a trial on the mer- its and reversed its previous ruling on the motion to dismiss. The court decided the planning board decision was based on both planning and zoning issues, and Route 12 had to follow the respective procedures for appellate review. Since the portions of the planning board decision based on planning issues were not appealed to the court within 30 days, the court did not have jurisdiction. Route 12 appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court noted town officials could have been more helpful, but this did not excuse Route 12 from complying with the requ/rement ro appeal the plan- ning board decision within 30 days, which it failed to do. The zoning board of adjustment failed to respond after the petitioner brought an appeal. The appropriate remedy there would have been a writ of mandamus to compel the board to respond. The board's failure to respond did not transfer jurisdiction to the trial court. The court also looked at the minutes of the planning board's hearing and found that the petitioner was sufficiently apprised of the board's reasoning for its decision. Citariort: RoLite 12 Books & Video v. Town of Trog &~preme Court of New Hampshire, No. 2002-483 (2003). see also: HoffmaJ~ v. Town of Gilford, 786 A.2d 9.3 (2001).