JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN v. TOWN OF GILFORD & a.

Order, Joseph F. Hoffman v. Town of Gilford & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

 

In Case No. 99-771, Joseph F. Hoffman v. Town of Gilford & a., the court on December 4, 2001, made the following order:

New Hampshire Municipal Association's motion to intervene as amicus curiae to request clarification is granted. On the motion for clarification, the motion for rehearing and reconsideration, and the motion to re-consider decision, the court modifies the slip opinion dated October 9, 2001, as follows:

The paragraph on page 3 of the slip opinion that begins with the words "The statutes do not" and ends with the words "to the superior court, and the following paragraph that begins on page 3 with the words "This procedural distinction" and ends on page 4 with the citation to Storms v. Town of Eaton, are deleted and replaced by the following single paragraph:

The statutes do not, on their face, provide for a different review process when a planning board decision resolves both zoning and planning issues. The aggrieved party may still take zoning issues to the ZBA and planning issues to superior court. This procedural distinction fits the different levels of review for zoning and planning issues. For pure planning issues, there is only a single level of review and even that review is discretionary. See Daboul v. Town of Hampton, 124 N.H. 307, 308-09 (1983); Price v. Planning Board, 120 N.H. 481, 484-86 (1980). In contrast, for issues involving the interpretation or application of a zoning ordinance, there are two levels of review. At the local level, the ZBA reviews the decision to ensure uniform application of local zoning laws. See Dube v. Town of Hudson, 140 N.H. 135, 137-38 (1995). Then, there is a statutory right to have the superior court review the ZBA decision. See, e.g., Storms v. Town of Eaton, 131 N.H. 50, 51-52 (1988).

In all other respects, the motion for clarification, the motion for rehearing and reconsideration, and the motion to re-consider decision are denied.

BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK, NADEAU, DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

Date of clerk's notice of decision: December 18, 2001