Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 24 <br />that DGS could not be said to have deliberately preferred a site requiring vari- <br />ance relief over an acceptable alternative location that would not have needed <br />such relief. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BZA did not abuse its <br />discretion in granting the area variance despite DGS having chosen the property <br />knowing it would need a variance. <br />See also: Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 579 <br />A.2d 1164 (D.C. 1990). <br />Case Note: <br />NRG had also argued that the variances being sought were actually use variances and <br />not area variances. The court rejected that claim. <br />Decisions of boards or officers — <br />Planning board denies site plan <br />application, opining that proposed <br />facility would not be a good fit for <br />the area <br />Noting the site plan application met all zoning requirements, <br />applicant challenges denial as illegally subjective despite all <br />objective criteria being met <br />Citation: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Town of Hanover, 2018 WL <br />5796932 (N.H. 2018) <br />NEW HAMPSHIRE (11/06/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />planning board unreasonably denied a site plan application. More specifically, it <br />addressed whether a planning board had the authority to deny a site application <br />despite the application meeting all zoning requirements. <br />The Background/Facts: In March 2016, the Trustees of Dartmouth College <br />("Dartmouth") submitted to the Town of Hanover's Planning Board ("the <br />Board") a site plan application for the construction of an Indoor Practice Facil- <br />ity ("IPF"). The proposed IPF was to be a 69,860 square foot facility within the <br />college's 41-acre athletic complex located in the Institutional Zoning District <br />("I -District") in the Town of Hanover (the "Town"). The proposed IPF site abut- <br />ted a neighborhood of single-family homes in a Single Residence zoning district. <br />Pursuant to the Town zoning ordinance, the I -District allowed for large facilities <br />for educational and recreational purposes but set stringent height limitations <br />and setback requirements on buildings in close proximity to residential districts. <br />Abutters of the proposed IPF site "vigorously opposed" the IPF. Among <br />other things, they voiced concerns that the building's height would "block an <br />unreasonable amount of sunlight and cast shadows on their homes." <br />The Town's Zoning Administrator informed the Board that the IPF would be <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />