Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />sion that found that USC had met two of the requirements. The board <br />reheard the case, and, ultimately, it reversed the part of its order finding <br />use had met some requirements and affirmed the rest of the decision. . <br />USC appealed the board's decision to court. The board asked the <br />court to find in its favor without a trial, arguing that the court did not <br />have jurisdiction over the case until it had made a "final action" in the <br />case. It argued that the decision reversing the two issues upon which <br />USC had prevailed initially was, in effect, a separate claim that had to <br />be appealed-and reheard-before the court could hear the case. <br /> <br />Decision: Case allowed to proceed. <br /> <br />Normally, a party challenging the decision of an administrative zon- <br />ing agency had to exhaust its administrative remedies before proceeding <br />to court. The board argued that USC had to appeal its reversal for its <br />decision to be considered final. However, the court found that the re- <br />hearing satisfied USC's exhaustion requirment. <br />Courts generally gave deference to administrative agencies, and the <br />administrative exhaustion principle was designed to give petitioners a <br />review process affording an opportunity for zoning disputes to be set- <br />tled out of court. However, this did not mean that a petitioner had to <br />endure an "endless series of rehearings." Here, the board clearly had <br />heard and reheard the hardship factors at issue, and the court found its <br />decision upon rehearing to be a "final" action. <br />The court noted that paring the claims out and suggesting that use <br />had to ask for a rehearing of the hardship issues that had been discussed <br />at length at both hearings was "precisely the type of bifurcated review. <br />process" that the state's supreme court had hoped to avoid in previ- <br />ous cases similar in nature. That court had stated that "when a [zoning <br />board] denie[d] a motion for rehearing, the aggrieved party need not file <br />a second motion for rehearing to preserve for appeal any new issues, <br />findings or rulings first raised by the ZBA in that denial order." <br />Because both the :first and second hearings were based on the merits <br />of the same set of facts, the court found that the board had made a final <br />decision. The case was allowed to proceed to trial. <br /> <br />See also: McDonald v. Town of Effingham Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, <br />152 N.H. 171, 872 A.2d 1018 (2005)). <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />50 <br />