Opinion ID: 1516240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction Under RSA 676:4, IV

Text: PPG argues that the trial court had jurisdiction to review procedural aspects of planning board decisions under RSA 676:4, IV. It presented a list of alleged procedural errors for the trial court to review. The respondents argue that actions under RSA 676:4, IV are limited to the thirty-day window for appeal specified in RSA 677:15, I; therefore, PPG's procedural challenge was untimely and was an unavailing attempt to circumvent the time requirements of . . . RSA 677:15. RSA 676:4 governs the procedures planning boards must use when considering or acting upon a plat or application. PPG's reliance upon RSA 676:4, IV is misplaced as that provision does not address the process by which one may appeal a planning board decision. RSA 676:4, IV must be read in conjunction with RSA 677:15 (Supp.2006), which describes that process and requires that such appeal be brought within thirty days of the planning board's decision.