K & B Rock Crushing, LLC v. Town of Auburn
Decision Date | 19 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2005–211.,2005–211. |
Citation | 904 A.2d 697,153 N.H. 566 |
Parties | K & B ROCK CRUSHING, LLC and another. v. TOWN OF AUBURN. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Hebert & Uchida, PLLC, of Concord (Richard Y. Uchida and Quentin J. Blaine on the brief), for the petitioners.
Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, PLLC, of Manchester (Dean B. Eggert on the brief), for the respondent.
Gottesman & Hollis, PA, of Nashua (Anna B. Hantz on the memorandum of law), for intervenors Canedy, Canedy, and Chalmers.
Stephen Blaha, by brief, as intervenor, pro se.
The respondent, Town of Auburn (town), appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Morrill, J.) ruling that the petitioners, K & B Rock Crushing, LLC and Keith Babb, were entitled to submit to the Town of Auburn Planning Board (board) an application for a permit to excavate 5.5 acres. We reverse.
The record supports the following facts. The petitioners applied to the board for a permit to excavate and crush rock on a tract of land in Auburn. The application stated that 5.5 acres of the land would be excavated over twelve years, with "Phase I" involving excavation of approximately 1.6 acres. After proceedings not relevant to the issue before us, the board ruled that the petitioners' application was complete only for a 1.6–acre excavation. Without filing a motion for rehearing, the petitioners directly appealed to the superior court. The town moved to dismiss, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the petitioners did not first move for a rehearing before the board. The court denied the town's motion, and ruled that the petitioners were entitled to submit an application for 5.5 acres of excavation to the board.
On appeal, the town argues, among other things, that the petitioners were required to move for a rehearing before the board as a prerequisite to their appeal to the superior court. The petitioners respond that RSA 155–E:9 (2002), which provides for appeals from an excavation permit proceeding, did not require them to move for a rehearing before appealing to the superior court. They assert that RSA 155–E:9 allows direct appeal to the superior court when the planning board is the body authorized to issue excavation permits.
In considering the town's motion to dismiss, In the Matter of Juvenile 2004–789–A, 153 N.H. ––––, ––––, 897 A.2d 940 (2006). In deciding the motion to dismiss, the superior court was essentially asked to construe RSA 155–E:9. Thus, this appeal presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See id.
In matters of statutory interpretation, Woodview Dev. Corp. v. Town of Pelham, 152 N.H. 114, 116, 871 A.2d 58 (2005) (citation omitted).
"Regulator" is defined in relevant part in RSA 155–E:1, III (Supp.2005) as:
The petitioners argue that because the "regulator" was a planning board in this case, the petitioners were allowed to appeal the initial decision directly to the superior court without the necessity of moving for a rehearing. They rely upon RSA 677:15 (Supp.2005), which states, in relevant part: "Any persons aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning a plat or subdivision may present to the superior court a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal or unreasonable in whole or in part ...." Although RSA 677:15 provides for direct appeals to the superior court from planning board decisions involving plats or subdivisions, the plain language of RSA 155–E:9, involving decisions on excavations, makes clear that an appeal of an excavation permit decision to the superior court in conformity with RSA 677:4 – :15 is authorized only when a "person affected by the regulator's decision on a motion for rehearing to the regulator" chooses to appeal. RSA 155–E:9 (emphasis added). The petitioners seek to apply the appeal procedures in RSA 677:15 to a person affected by the board's initial decision on an application for an excavation permit. RSA 155–E:9 does not incorporate the provisions of RSA 677:4 – :15 at that stage of the proceeding. Thus, even if we assume that the petitioners are correct that the procedures in RSA 677:15 govern when the regulator is a planning board, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...as a participating party. This inquiry constitutes a question of law, which we review de novo. See K & B Rock Crushing v. Town of Auburn, 153 N.H. 566, 568, 904 A.2d 697 (2006).The legislature has enacted a "comprehensive statutory framework for apportionment of liability and contribution" ......
- In re Town of Nottingham
-
McNamara v. Hersh
...in the [petitioners'] pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery." K & B Rock Crushing v. Town of Auburn, 153 N.H. 566, 568, 904 A.2d 697 (2006) (quotation omitted). We assume the McNamaras' pleadings to be true and construe all reasonable inferences i......
-
In re Kenick
...in the petitioner's pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. K & B Rock Crushing v. Town of Auburn, 153 N.H. 566, 568, 904 A.2d 697 (2006). We assume the petitioner's pleadings to be true and construe all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom most f......