Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Hull-etirn May-25-2011_)_V_olumP 5 I No. 10 <br />tutional purposes." Constitutional safeguards required only that <br />the City make its decision whether to issue the license "within a <br />specified and reasonable time period during which the status quo <br />is maintained." The court found that was the case here. <br />Standing —Residents Challenge Grant Of <br />Subdivision Application To Developer <br />Developer asserts residents' proximity to development alone <br />is insufficient to establish standing to challenge grant <br />Citation: Golf Course Investors of NH, LLC v. Town of Jaffrey, <br />2011 WL 1399563 (N.H. 2011) <br />NEW HAMPSHIRE (04/12/11)—This case addressed the issue <br />of whether town residents who lived in close proximity to a pro- <br />posed development project had standing to challenge a planning <br />board decision to grant the developer's subdivision application. <br />The Background/Facts: Golf Course Investors of NH, LLC <br />("GCI") submitted a major subdivision application to the Town of <br />Jaffrey (the "Town"). It sought to subdivide its single 9.13-acre par- <br />cel into two lots, one consisting of 7.39 acres, and the other of 1.75 <br />acres containing a building. GCI also sought to convert the existing <br />building into a four -unit condominium. <br />The Town's planning board voted that a special exception was not <br />required to allow the proposed four -unit condominium. The planning <br />board ultimately approved the major subdivision application. <br />Seven Town residents (the "Residents") appealed the plan- <br />ning board's decision to the Town's zoning board of appeals (the <br />"ZBA"). Each of the Residents lived within 450 to 2,400 feet of <br />GCI's lot. The Residents argued that the planning board erred in <br />allowing the four dwelling units in the Mountain Zone on a plot <br />of only 1.75 acres without a special exception. The Residents as- <br />serted that the standard zoning in the Mountain Zone required at <br />least six acres for four units with town water, or at least 4.8 acres <br />for Open Space Development Plan for four units with town wa- <br />ter. They asked the ZBA to overturn the planning board's decision. <br />They maintained that they welcomed the building redevelopment <br />by GCI as long as GCI's proposed four -unit development was on at <br />least 4.8 acres, as required by the Town's zoning regulations. <br />GCI argued that the Residents lacked standing (i.e., the legal <br />right) to appeal the planning board's decision. GCI contended that <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />