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

Heading: The Decision of the Planning Board

Text: PPG first argues that the thirty-day time limit in RSA 677:15, I, for appealing decisions of planning boards does not apply because there was no decision to appeal. PPG claims that: (1) the planning board had no application before it; and (2) even if there were a pending application, the planning board's approval was not a final decision because there was a condition precedent attached to it, namely, the submission of a landscaping plan. The respondents counter that the proposal was an application and the condition was a condition subsequent, which would not negate the finality and appealability of the site plan determination. We first address PPG's challenge to the application, then its argument that the conditional approval of the application precluded a final decision.
To support its claim that there was no application and, therefore, no decision, PPG cites DHB, 152 N.H. at 317, 876 A.2d 206, in which a landowner sought to appeal the decision of a planning board not to accept an application. There, we held that the decision not to accept the application was not a decision under RSA 677:15, I, because the trigger for the thirty-day appeal period is the approval or disapproval of an application. DHB, 152 N.H. at 318, 876 A.2d 206; see RSA 676:4, I(c)(1). PPG attempts to analogize, arguing that, [T]he planning board did not vote to approve the application, it voted to waive formal site plan review. . . . A vote to waive formal site plan review is no more a vote to approve than a vote not to accept an application for review is a vote to disapprove. PPG's reliance upon DHB is misplaced because DHB concerned site plan review pursuant to RSA 676:4, I, II and not the site plan determination process referred to in 676:4, III, which specifically authorizes the expedited procedure used by the town. RSA 676:4, III provides in pertinent part: A planning board may, by adopting regulations, provide for an expedited review and approval for proposals involving minor subdivisions which create not more than 3 lots for building development purposes or for proposals which do not involve creation of lots for building development purposes. The record demonstrates that Hall submitted an application for site plan determination on applicable planning board forms. Hall's application was filed pursuant to LDCR Article IX, Section 170-51, C, which provides that applicants seeking a site plan determination . . . shall submit a duly executed site plan determination application on forms provided by the Planning Department, together with any exhibits or fees required as part of the same. Though the official form was submitted after the fact, the record shows that the proposal submitted before the hearing, which was sufficiently publicized to abutters and the public, functioned as an application. The proposal came in response to the town's request for proposals and met the requirements of that request. In making this determination, we bear in mind that the statute governing procedural challenges expressly commands that [t]he planning board's procedures shall not be subjected to strict scrutiny for technical compliance. Procedural defects shall result in the reversal of a planning board's actions by judicial action only when such defects create serious impairment of opportunity for notice and participation. RSA 676:4, IV (Supp.2006). By approving the application for site plan determination and, therefore, waiving site plan review, the planning board followed the expedited procedure for site plan determination set forth in the applicable regulations. Having found the proposal to be an application upon which a valid final decision could be made and appealed, we consider PPG's next argument that that decision was not final and appealable under RSA 677:15, I, because there was a condition precedent attached to it.
PPG refers to our ruling in Totty v. Grantham Planning Board, 120 N.H. 388, 415 A.2d 687 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds by Winslow v. Holderness Planning Board, 125 N.H. 262, 269, 480 A.2d 114 (1984), which held that intervening parties who owned land adjoining that of an applicant could not appeal a board's grant of conditional approval of an applicant's proposal because the decision did not constitute final approval and, therefore, was not appealable. Following Totty, we clarified the difference between conditions precedent to approval and conditions subsequent to approval and we described their effect upon the finality and appealability of a planning board decision. See Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327, 480 A.2d 149 (1984). We noted that conditions precedent, such as those in Totty, contemplate additional action on the part of the town and, thus, cannot constitute final approval. Conditions subsequent, on the other hand, do not delay approval. Id. The condition for approval in this case was not required to be fulfilled before any renovation commenced, and, thus, was a condition subsequent, not a condition precedent. Within the context of the site plan determination process, what Hall received from the planning board was an approval. Had the planning board intended that Hall go through the rigors of site plan review, it would have denied Hall's application for site plan determination. However, having approved the proposal with conditions, the planning board issued a final decision that was appealable to the superior court under RSA 677:15, I.