Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 24 <br />base its decision on more than the mere personal opinions of its members, said <br />the court. <br />See also: Town of Deering ex rel. Bittenbender v. Tibbetts, 105 N.H. 481, 202 <br />A.2d 232 (1964). <br />See also: Condos East Corp. v. Town of Conway, 132 N.H. 431, 566 A.2d <br />1136 (1989). <br />Case Note: <br />In overturning the trial court, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire also held that the <br />evidence did not reasonably support the trial court's findings. Specifically, the court <br />found that, contrary to the trial court's findings, the Board had not denied Dartmouth's <br />application because the IPF would deprive abutting homes of sunlight. In fact, the <br />Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that the Board members only briefly touched on <br />that issue, and, in actuality, based their denial on their `feelings" that the proposed IPF <br />did not meet the standard of being a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing development. <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire emphasized that it was not sug- <br />gesting that site plan reviews should be "reduced to the mechanical process of determin- <br />ing conformity with specific zoning and site plan regulations." However, the court also <br />made clear that a planning board cannot solely base its decision upon general <br />considerations that, in doing so, override the site plan's conformity with specific regula- <br />tions and ordinances. <br />Time for proceedings — <br />Environmental group challenges <br />tree removal agreement between <br />city and utility <br />Utility argues that group's challenge must be dismissed as <br />untimely for failing to meet statute of limitations <br />Citation: Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette, 293 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222 <br />(Cal. App. lst, Oct. 23, 2018) <br />CALIFORNIA (10/23/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether causes <br />of action based on violations of planning and zoning law were timely served. <br />The Background/Facts: On March 27, 2017, the City of Lafayette (the <br />"City") approved a tree removal agreement (the "Agreement") with Pacific Gas <br />and Electric Company ("PG&E") which authorized and imposed conditions on <br />the removal of up to 272 trees within PG&E's local natural gas pipeline rights- <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />