Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special

Home

June 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin maintained vacation ownership units at Attitash Mountain Village, a resort in Bartlett, New Hampshire (the "Town"). In September 2009, River Run applied to the Town's Board of Selectmen (the "Selectboard") for a permit to place a sign on Route 302, advertising, "The Suites at Attitash Mountain Village." The Selectboard approved River Run's application. River Run then erected the sign at the westerly entrance to the resort area. At some point, an additional, smaller sign was affixed underneath the approved sign. The additional sign read: "REGISTRATION .3 MILES BACK ON LEFT." The sign referred to the registration office where patrons registered for Attitash Mountain Village. The office was located on a lot within At- titash Mountain Village, separate from the lot on which the sign was located. Thereafter, the Selectboard informed River Run that the additional sign violated the Town's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The Selectboard contended that the sign violated: Article XVI, section A-10 of the ordinance, which prohibited the erection of an outdoor sign "on any premises other than on the premises where the activity to which the sign pertains is located"; and Article XVI, Section D, which prohibited off - premise signs "in all districts except as provided elsewhere in [the] Ordinance." The Selectboard reasoned that because the sign advertised the registration office which was not on the property where the sign was, the sign was considered an off premise sign and therefore not permitted. River Run appealed to the Town's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "ZBA"). The ZBA determined "that the sign served as a directional sign for patrons," and thus, pursuant to another section of the Ordinance, was exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance prohibiting off -premise signs. The Selectboard moved for rehearing. The ZBA denied the Select - board's rehearing request. The Selectboard then appealed to superior court. On appeal, among other things, it argued that River Run's sign was not exempt as a directional sign. The trial court ruled that the sign was not an off -premises sign. The court found that the teiuu "premises" in the Ordinance could be interpreted to mean more than a single lot of land, and could mean multiple lots under the same ownership. The Selectboard appealed. It argued that the term "premises" referred more accurately to a single lot of land. Again, it maintained that the sign advertised the registration office which was not on the same lot as the sign, and therefore the sign was considered an off premise sign and not permit- ted under the Ordinance. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of -New Hampshire held that the sign was not an off -premises sign and therefore was peiiuitted under the Town's Ordinance. In so concluding, the court looked to the ordinary and plain meaning of the language of the Ordinance. Finding the Ordinance did not define ' 10 ©2013 Thomson Reuters