NHCaseLaw.com

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 plaintiffs, Dr. Gerald Berube and Gerber Management and Realty Corporation, instituted this proceeding pursuant to RSA 677:15 (Supp. 2000) to review a decision of the planning board (board) of the defendant City of Manchester (city) which denied site plan approval of plaintiffs' proposed construction of a dental office on property located at the northeast corner of Salmon and Elm Streets in Manchester. On October 24, 2000, this court issued a certiorari order to the city, directing it to file a response to the petition together with the certified record of proceedings before the board. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter and took a view of the subject property on May 22, 2001. The court concludes that the board's decision is neither unlawful nor unreasonable, and therefore must be affirmed.