Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

June 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin the zoning plan." The court had applied the doctrine to a variance ap- plication, but had never applied it to successive site plan applications. CBDA appealed the Board's denial of its second site plan application. Before the trial court, CBDA argued that: (1) the subse- quent application doctrine was inapplicable to planning board deci- sions; and (2) even if it applied to site plan applications before a plan- ning board, "the Board acted unreasonably when it concluded that CBDA's second application did not materially differ from the initial application." The trial court affirmed the Board's decision to apply the subsequent application doctrine to CBDA's second application. In doing so, the court found that the policy goals of finality of proceedings, upholding the integrity of the zoning plan, and protecting the interests of those who rely upon the zoning plan were "as relevant and critical in the planning board context as they are in zoning board appeals." The trial court also ruled that the Board "reasonably found that [CBDA's] subsequent application was not materially different" from its original application because the subsequent application "did not adequately ad- dress [the Board's] explicit concern about the permanency of the campsites in its proposal." CBDA, again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire agreed with the Town and the trial court. As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court ruled on the issue), the court held that a planning board could ap- ply the subsequent application doctrine as a basis for not considering a second site plan application. In so holding, the court emphasized that "finality is essential to planning board proceedings," conserving the re- sources of the administrative agency and of interested third parties who may intervene, and limiting arbitrary and capricious administrative decision -making. Moreover, the court noted that planning boards, like zoning boards, act in a quasi-judicial manner when approving or deny- ing a site plan. Further, the court recognized that site plan review is "not merely a `mechanical exercise' of implementing the `specific lim- itations imposed by ordinances and statutes.' " Rather, the court noted that planning boards have the authority to impose conditions upon site plans that are reasonably related to land use goals, including safe and attractive land development, and therefore, planning board decisions, like zoning board decisions, affect development of municipalities. The court also concluded that the record supported the Board's refusal to consider CBDA's second site plan application. Applying the subsequent application doctrine here, the court found that CBDA's subsequent (second) site plan application was not modified to address the Board's concerns about the initial application. The court found that 4 © 2016 Thomson Reuters