Kassey Cameron appealed a Superior Court order a ruling that she lacked standing to appeal a decision of the City of Concord Planning Board approving the site plan application of Big Step, LLC. Cameron also appealed the court’s order granting the developer’s motion to lift the stay in her direct appeal from the planning board’s decision.
On the question of standing to appeal, the Court addressed whether Cameron was a person aggrieved. Since Cameron was not an abutter, to determine standing the Court had to consider factors such as the proximity of the challenging party’s property to the site for which approval is sought, the type of change proposed, the immediacy of the injury claimed, and the challenging party’s participation in the administrative hearings. Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541 (1979). With regards to proximity, the Court noted there is no bright line rule identifying whether and to what extent physical proximity establishes direct interest to confer standing. In this case, the plaintiff’s property is approximately 2,600 feet, and a driving distance of approximately one mile, from the site of the proposed project and those factors supported the trial court decision Cameron had insufficient proximity to support standing.
Cameron also claimed that she will be injured by increased traffic and related safety concerns. The superior court found that the increased traffic “is not particular to her,” but “to her neighborhood and all those who would drive past” the project. Although the plaintiff argued that an increase in traffic does not need to be “exclusive” to her property, the superior court correctly noted that, “the injury must still be particular to [the plaintiff] and cannot be so generalized as to apply to anyone who drives along the heavily traveled route.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court did not commit judicial error in finding that the relevant factors do not support the plaintiff’s standing to appeal the planning board’s decision.
*This is a Final Order issued by the Supreme Court that disposes of a case that has been briefed but in which no opinion is issued. Although this Final Order has no precedential value it does provide helpful guidance for municipal officials.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: Where a party appealing a land use board decision is not an abutter to establish standing a reviewing Court had to consider factors such as the proximity of the challenging party’s property to the site for which approval is sought, the type of change proposed, the immediacy of the injury claimed, and the challenging party’s participation in the administrative hearings.