Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2011

Home

May-2 , 2011 I Volume 5 No 16 Lonmg bulletin the Residents were not "persons aggrieved." It argued that living close to the project or having a general interest in the proper en- forcement of town ordinances was not enough to be "aggrieved." The ZBA voted that the Residents were "aggrieved." It also vot- ed to grant the Residents' appeal, finding that a special exception'to allow a multifamily use was required. GCI appealed to court. The trial court ruled that the Residents lacked standing to bring their appeal. The court vacated the ZBA's decision granting the appeal, reversing the planning board's decision. The Town appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Residents were not "persons aggrieved," and therefore lacked standing to ap- peal the planning board's decision. The court said that to have standing to appeal to the ZBA, the Residents had to be "aggrieved" by the planning board's decision approving the major subdivision application without requiring a special exception. Citing the relevant state statute (RSA 677:2 and RSA 677:4), the court explained that "persons aggrieved" included any person "directly affected" by the challenged administrative ac- tion or proceeding. The appealing'party had to show some "direct, definite interest in the outcome of the action or proceeding." In determining whether the Residents —all nonabutters—had a sufficient, definite interest to confer standing, the court said it must consider factors such as: proximity of the challenging party's prop- erty to the site for which approval is sought; the type of change proposed; the immediacy of the injury claimed; and the challenging party's participation in the administrative hearings. The court fur- ther noted that sufficiency of the challenging person's interest is a factual determination to be undertaken on a case -by -case basis. Here, the court found that all of the Residents lived within ap- proximately 2,400 feet of GCI's lot. However, the court noted that there was no "bright line rule identifying whether and to what ex- tent physical proximity establishes direct interest sufficient to confer standing." The court concluded that while close proximity is 'rel- evant to determining standing, it does not alone establish a direct, definite interest sufficient to confer standing. Looking to the other factors it must consider, the court found that here: the type of change proposed was minimal; none of the Residents asserted or presented evidence supporting a particularized harm to them that would result from GCI's proposed project; and only one of seven Residents participated in the planning board proceedings. The 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters