Opinion ID: 4536121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings Before the Wetlands Council

Text: The Corrs notified DES that they planned to challenge the department’s authority to restrict the height of the structure, and subsequently appealed DES’ administrative order to the Council. In their appeal, the Corrs raised four alternative arguments as to how DES had acted unlawfully and unreasonably in issuing its order: (1) DES lacks statutory authority to restrict the height of buildings within the protected shoreland; should such authority exist, the lack of a standard for determining the height of a building renders that authority unenforceable; (2) DES’ authority to restrict height is limited to “small” accessory structures, and the Corrs’ structure is not “small”; (3) DES erred in applying its height restriction for small accessory structures to the Corrs’ structure, which should have been evaluated by DES as a nonconforming 3 structure under RSA 483-B:11, I (2013);3 and (4) DES’ order should have applied a vested rights exemption or granted the Corrs a waiver of the rules. After receiving notice of the appeal, the Council requested and received the assignment of a hearing officer from the New Hampshire Attorney General. Prior to a hearing before the Council, DES filed a motion to dismiss, in which it argued that the Corrs had failed to demonstrate that the department had acted unlawfully and unreasonably in restricting the height of the structure, and in failing to apply a vested rights exemption or grant a waiver. DES requested that the motion “be ruled on by the Hearing Officer pursuant to RSA 21-M:3, IX(e).”4 The Corrs filed an objection to DES’ motion to dismiss, expanding upon the arguments raised in their initial petition. The hearing officer issued an order (dismissal order) granting in part and denying in part DES’ motion to dismiss. Assuming the facts alleged by the Corrs to be true, see Hobin v. Caldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, 144 N.H. 626, 627 (2000), and ruling on issues of law, see RSA 21-M:3, IX(d) (2012) (stating that the hearing officer is to “[d]ecide all questions of law presented during the pendency of the appeal”), the hearing officer determined that: (1) the Corrs’ structure is an “accessory structure” as defined by RSA 483-B:4, II (2013); (2) DES has the authority to restrict the height of accessory structures pursuant to RSA 483-B:17, IV (2013); and (3) the Corrs’ structure was not made “more nearly conforming” than the original nonconforming structure, see RSA 483-B:11, I; N.H. Admin. R., Env-Wq 1408.05, because the height of the structure was increased by ten feet. The hearing officer left the following factual determinations for the Council: (1) whether DES’ methodology for measuring height in this case is arbitrary and subject to unfettered discretion; and (2) whether the Corrs were entitled to a vested rights determination or (3) whether the Coors were entitled to a waiver of regulations. 3 RSA 483-B:11, I, states, in relevant part: Except as otherwise prohibited by law or applicable municipal ordinance, nonconforming structures located within the protected shoreland may be repaired, replaced in kind, reconstructed in place, altered, or expanded. Repair, replacement-in kind, or reconstruction in place may alter or remodel the interior design or existing foundation of the nonconforming structure, but shall result in no expansion or relocation of the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer. However, alteration or expansion of a nonconforming structure may expand the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer, provided the structure is not extended closer to the reference line and the proposal or property is made more nearly conforming than the existing structure or the existing conditions of the property. 4 RSA 21-M:3, IX(e) provides that a hearing officer, when designated for a particular appeal, shall “[p]repare and issue written decisions on all motions . . . .” RSA 21-M:3, IX(e) (2012). 4 Following a hearing,5 the Council issued an order (initial order), signed by the hearing officer, concluding that, once the Corrs’ structure was set back from the shoreline, DES acted unlawfully in regulating it as a newly constructed “accessory structure,” to which its 12-foot height restriction applied, see RSA 483-B:17, IV; N.H. Admin. R., Env-Wq 1405.03, rather than as a nonconforming structure replaced by a “more nearly conforming” structure, to which its height restriction did not apply, see RSA 483-B:11 (2013). The Council stated that, given the new placement of the structure 10 feet back from the shoreline, as well as the storm water management features detailed in the structure’s design plans, it was possible that the structure had become “more nearly conforming than the existing structure” in compliance with RSA 483-B:11. The Council remanded DES’ order to the department for consideration of the structure’s compliance with RSA 483-B:11. DES filed a motion to reconsider, contending that, in its initial order, the Council had improperly overruled a legal determination made by the hearing officer. DES argued that, by ruling that the Corrs’ structure should be regulated by the department as a “nonconforming structure” rather than an “accessory structure,” the Council had ignored the hearing officer’s legal determination that DES has the authority to restrict the height of the Corrs’ structure as an “accessory structure.” DES also contended that the Council had failed to decide the discrete factual issues reserved for it by the hearing officer in his order on the department’s motion to dismiss. The Corrs filed an objection to DES’ motion to reconsider, requesting that the Council deny the motion, or, in the alternative, supplement the order with a finding that DES’ enforcement of a height limitation in this case is arbitrary, capricious, and unenforceable. In an order on DES’ motion to reconsider (reconsideration order), signed by both the hearing officer and the Council chairman, the Council adopted statements made by the hearing officer during the Council’s deliberations on the motion to reconsider, specifically that “the Council’s consideration . . . of the applicability of RSA 483-B:11 was tied to the question of height raised by the appellants,” was not estopped by the hearing officer’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, and, “being a question of applying fact to relevant law,” was “within Council authority.” See RSA 21-M:3, IX(c) (2012) (stating that the hearing officer shall “[d]eliberate with the council before reaching conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact”). The Council also explained that its wording had been “inexact” when it stated in its initial order that the Corrs’ structure was a nonconforming structure “rather than an accessory structure.” The Council clarified that “[t]he structure under consideration . . . is a nonconforming accessory structure.” Maintaining that a “salient point” of its initial order was that “[t]he structure is a nonconforming structure,” the Council reiterated that 5 At the hearing, the Council heard testimony from respondent Bryan Corr, a Town building code official, a private storm water management consultant, and three employees from DES. 5 the department had “failed to consider that by moving the building back from shore 10 feet, the building is more nearly conforming to RSA [chapter] 483-B.” Turning next to DES’ argument that the Council had neglected to decide the factual issues posed to it by the hearing officer, the Council concluded that DES’ “height measurement method was unreasonable.” It also concluded that, by accepting DES’ allegations of fact in its initial order that the Corrs had never submitted documentation claiming a vested rights exemption or requested a waiver, it had denied the Corrs’ arguments that they were entitled to the vested rights exemption or a waiver of the rules. Nevertheless, the order stated that “[t]he Hearing Officer noted, and the Council agreed, that in a situation like this, DES is required to make a reasonable effort to consider all statutory avenues and possible waivers to resolve the dispute.” This appeal followed.