Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2010 1 Volume 4 J No. 10 voted to deny Motorsports' application for the special permit. The Board denied the application based on its determination that Motorsports' Project failed to meet five of seven "Section A criteria under the WCO." Section A of the WCO provided seven criteria that the WCO should prevent or protect. For example, the first criteria under Section A provid- ed that the WCO shall "[p]revent the development of structures and land uses on naturally occurring wetlands which will contribute to pollution of surface and ground water sewage, sediment, or noxious substances." Motorsports appealed. Certain abutters and town residents (the "In- tervenors") intervened in the appeal, joining the case and arguing in fa- vor of the permit denial. Among other things, Motorsports argued that the Board failed to ad- equately provide grounds for its decision, as required by state statutory law, RSA 676:4, I(h). Under RSA 676:4, I(h): "In case of disapproval of any application submitted to the planning board, the ground for such disapproval shall be adequately stated upon the records of the planning board." Here, the Board did not issue a written decision that outlined its rea- sons for denying Motorsports' application for a special use permit. The Intervenors argued that the Board's casting of separate votes on each of the seven Section A criteria, as reflected in the November 8 Board meet- ing minutes, constituted an adequate statement for the grounds of disap- proval necessary to comply with RSA 676:4, I(h). The trial court concluded it was unnecessary to decide this statutory issue because it vacated the Board's decision on other grounds. The Intervenors appealed. Motorsports cross -appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the minutes of the Board's meeting did not constitute an adequate statement of the Board's reasons for disapproving Motorsports' application for a special use per- mit, as required by RSA 676:4, I(h). The court explained that RSA 676:4, I(h) compelled the Board to "sufficiently apprise [Motorsports] of the [B]oard's reasoning and pro- vide an adequate record of the [B]oard's reasoning for [the court] to re- view on appeal." The court said such a requirement "anticipates an ex- press written record that sufficiently apprises an applicant of the reasons for disapproval and 'enables `a reviewing authority [to] hold the board accountable.'" Typically, a written denial letter combined with meeting minutes of a planning board meeting can satisfy the requirement, said the court. Still, whether planning board records "adequately state[]" the ground for disapproval in accordance with RSA 676:4, I(h) "depends upon the particular case." Here, the court disagreed with the Intervenors' argument that the No- vember 8 Board meeting minutes constituted an adequate statement of the Board's reasons for denying Motorsports' application. The' Board © 2010 Thomson Reuters 5 153