Summary
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the Housing Appeals Board’s orders vacating the Town of Amherst Planning Board’s denial of subdivision and site plan approval for a 49-unit housing project, including age-restricted units. The court held that the Board acted unreasonably by denying the application based on unresolved age-restriction compliance concerns without completing its customary review of the condominium documents, and by relying on rural-aesthetic and density concerns previously addressed in an earlier conditional use permit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Housing Appeals Board erred in finding unreasonable the planning board's denial based on concerns about compliance with state and federal age-restricted-housing requirements.
- Whether the Housing Appeals Board erred in finding unreasonable the planning board's denial based on the project's alleged failure to preserve a rural aesthetic.
- Whether the Housing Appeals Board improperly substituted its judgment for that of the planning board and failed to apply the required deferential standard of review.
Holdings
- The Housing Appeals Board did not act unjustly or unreasonably in vacating the planning board's denial based on age-related legal-compliance concerns where the board had not completed the customary review of the proposed condominium documents and compliance could be addressed through those documents and approval conditions.
- The Housing Appeals Board reasonably determined that the planning board could not deny the subdivision and site plan application on the asserted rural-aesthetic and density grounds because those considerations had already been addressed when the conditional use permit authorizing density of up to 54 units was granted.
- The Town failed to demonstrate that the Housing Appeals Board substituted its judgment for the planning board's or failed to apply the statutory standard of review.
Key quotations
“We cannot say that it was unjust or unreasonable for the HAB to conclude that the Board’s failure to follow this customary practice, and instead, to deny the application based on its own concerns about legal compliance, was unreasonable.” (4)
“In other words, the HAB observed that “Denying a project using the undefined concept of ‘rural aesthetics’ is misplaced,” but nevertheless concluded that “the grant of the CUP ‘for up to 54 units’ satisfied this ‘undefined concept.’”” (7)
Factual background
Migrela Realty Trust II and GAM Realty Trust sought approval for a housing project in Amherst. The project had previously received a conditional use permit under the Town's Integrated Innovative Housing Ordinance authorizing increased density of up to 54 units; the later subdivision and site plan proposal was reduced to 49 units, including 14 age-restricted units and 35 unrestricted units. The planning board denied the application based on concerns about compliance with elderly-housing laws, the absence of sufficient separation or governing controls between age-restricted and unrestricted units, and preservation of the Town's rural aesthetic. The planning board denied the application before Town Counsel reviewed the proposed condominium documents.
Procedural history
The respondents applied for subdivision and site plan approval for a 49-unit housing project that included 14 age-restricted units. The Town planning board denied the application based on perceived conflicts with state and federal elderly-housing requirements and failure to preserve a rural aesthetic. The Housing Appeals Board vacated the denial and remanded to the planning board, then denied the Town's motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.
Remand instructions
The Housing Appeals Board's remand directives remained in effect. On remand, the planning board and applicant were to collaborate regarding state and federal age-restriction rules, the applicant was to provide complete condominium documents addressing the mixed-age-housing concerns, and the planning board was to review those documents before voting again. A new vote could deny the application only for legitimate unsatisfied requests, noncompliance with zoning ordinances or planning regulations, or valid concerns not addressed, or could approve it with customary and reasonable conditions.