Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/2019

Home

December 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin fully compliant with the Town's zoning ordinances, including ordinances regulating height restrictions, setback requirements and building -to -lot size ra- tio limitations. Board staff recommended approval of Dartmouth's site plan ap- plication for the IPF with 21 conditions. Dartmouth agreed to comply with all 21 conditions. Nevertheless, the Board ultimately voted to deny the application. Citing the Town's Site Plan Review Regulations, the Board based its denial on three enumerated reasons: (1) the application did not conform with the Town's Master Plan; (2) the application would have negative impacts on "the abutters, neighborhood and others, town services and fiscal health"; and (3) the applica- tion did not "relate to the harmonious and aesthetically pleasing development of the [T]own and its environs." Dartmouth appealed the Board's denial of its site plan application for the IPF to the trial court. The trial court concluded that the Board's decision was "law- ful and reasonably based upon a particular concern that the IPF `would block an unreasonable amount of sunlight from reaching abutting homes.' " Dartmouth again appealed. Among other things, Dartmouth argued that the trial court's decision was unreasonable and legally erroneous because the court: "(1) relied upon factual claims and a rationale, not supported by the evidence or the [B]oard's deliberations; and (2) upheld a planning board decision that was based upon ad hoc decision -making and personal feelings, rather than objective or discernible facts, to find that the application failed to meet the general considerations." DECISION: Judgment of trial court reversed, and matter remanded. Agreeing with Dartmouth, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that, since Dartmouth's site plan application complied with the Town's specific zon- ing ordinances and site plan regulations, the Board unreasonably and errone- ously denied Dartmouth's site plan application. In so holding, the court explained that a planning board's site plan review is intended to ensure "that sites will be developed in a safe and attractive manner and in a way that will not involve danger or injury to the health, safety, or prosperity of abutting property owners or the general public." In performing its review, the court noted that a planning board does not have the authority to deny a particular use "simply because it does not feel that the proposed use is an ap- propriate use of the land." Here, the court concluded that the Board exceeded its authority because, al- though the site plan application met all zoning requirements, the Board "es- sentially decided" that the IPF was: "(1) too large and imposing, despite the project's compliance with Hanover's I -District zoning ordinances regulating a structure's height and size; (2) too close to the abutting neighborhood, despite the project's compliance with the unique setback and height restrictions imposed by its proximity to a residential neighborhood; and (3) not a harmonious or aesthetically pleasing fit with the development of the [T]own and its environs, despite the fact that the IPF constitute[d] a permitted use within a `special district' that not only contemplate[d] large warehouse and recreational facilities, . . . [but included] two indoor sports facilities of similar sizes." The court held that "a planning board cannot supersede the specific regulations and ordinances that control the site plan review process with their own personal feelings and then justify their reasoning through the application of general considerations." While a planning board may rely on its own judgment and experience, it must 6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters