NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The plaintiff, Derry Senior Development, LLC, appeals an order of the Trial Court (Coffey, J.) upholding the denial of its application for site plan approval of an independent adult community development in the Town of Derry (town) by the Town of Derry Planning Board (board). We hold that, because the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) approved the plaintiff’s proposed sewage disposal system, the town has enacted no standards more stringent than the DES standards, see N.H. Admin. Rules, Env-Ws 1000-1025 (1999) (amended and readopted as Env-Wq 1000-1025 (2008)), and the record reveals no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff’s proposed system would not adequately protect all water supplies, the board unreasonably and unlawfully denied the plaintiff’s application for site plan approval. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

This is an appeal by the petitioner, Concerned Citizens for Horseshoe Pond, pursuant to RSA 677:4 (Supp. 2007), from a decision of the Town of Merrimack zoning board of adjustment ("the zoning board") upholding the Town of Merrimack planning board's ("the planning board") decision to grant site plan approval to the intervener, Melton Associates, LLC, for the construction of an elderly housing development. The court conducted a hearing on this matter on April 1, 2008. After careful review of the parties' submissions, the arguments presented at the hearing, and the certified record, the court concludes that the decision of the zoning board is not unlawful or unreasonable and therefore must be affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the Nashua Planning Board's ("the Board") decision denying its site plan proposal for an elderly housing development. The petitioner claims the Board's decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The Court held a bench trial on March 28, 2007. Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, oral arguments, and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

NADEAU, J. The plaintiff, Town of Lyndeborough (town), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Lynn, J.) declaring that RSA chapter 215-A (2000 & Supp. 2003) preempts the town’s site plan review process as a prerequisite to establishing an Off Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHRV) trail on land owned by the defendants, Boisvert Properties, LLC, Barbara Blaisdell Boisvert, and Laurent Boisvert, II. We reverse and remand.

The plaintiff, the Town of Lyndeborough (town), instituted this action against the defendants Boisvert Properties, LLC, Barbara Blaisdell Boisvert and Laurent Boisvert (the Boisverts), seeking to prevent them from allowing their property to be used as part of the state trail system for the operation of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRVs) without first obtaining site plan approval from the town’s planning board. The State of New Hampshire (State), acting on behalf of the department of resources and economic development (DRED), the Granite State ATV Association (association), and a group of the defendants’ neighbors (the “near neighbors”) were subsequently granted permission to intervene in the case to represent their respective interests. Presently before the court is the issue of whether the town’s land use regulations are preempted by the state statute governing OHRVs, RSA chapter 215-A (2000 and Supp. 2002). I conclude that RSA 215-A preempts the town from requiring the defendants to obtain site plan approval as a prerequisite to permitting public use of trails which have been accepted by DRED as part of the state OHRV trail system, but that the statute does not preclude the town from regulating certain other aspects of OHRV use on the subject property.

The plaintiff, RAW Investments Trust, instituted this action pursuant to RSA 677:15 (Supp. 2003) to challenge the decision of the planning board (board) of the defendant Town of Warner (town) denying site plan approval for a commercial development of property owned by plaintiff in the town. On November 12, 2003, the court (Fitzgerald, J.) issued a writ of certiorari, and the town subsequently filed a certified record of the proceedings before the board. The undersigned justice held a hearing on the matter on March 22, 2004. Based on my review of the entire record and consideration of the arguments of the parties, I conclude that the board’s decision must be affirmed.