NHCaseLaw.com

The State of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department ("the State") moves for summary judgment in Docket No. 01-E-162, in which the Merrymeeting Lake Association and Nancy and Eleanor Bryant (collectively, "the plaintiffs") appeal from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Wetlands Council's denial of their Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiffs object.

The extended history of this case can be found in North Country Environmental Services, Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem, 146 N.H. 348, 350-52 (2001). At stake are the interests of the Town of Bethlehem (Town) in exerting local control over the expanding private landfill operations of North Country Environmental Services, Inc. (NCES) within Town boundaries, and the interests of NCES in pursuing the essential job of accepting and processing municipal solid waste, subject to the State’s comprehensive plan for Solid Waste Management, RSA 149 – M.

This is an appeal by the Petitioners, six residents of Concord and Bow, New Hampshire, from the decision of the New Hampshire Wetlands Council (Council), affirming the issuance by the Wetlands Bureau of the Department of Environmental Services (DES) of a permit to the City of Concord (City) to fill approximately 3.56 acres of wetlands in connection with the construction of Phase II of the Northwest Bypass, the so-called Langley Parkway. Presently before the court is the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I heard oral argument on the motion and the Petitioners’ objections on March 16, 2004. I conclude that the City is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the appeal.

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.