Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter


Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Supermarket Could Not Challenge Competing Supermarket Developer

A supermarket sought review of a decision of the town zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) which granted a variance to an ordinance restricting the size of any single building in the commercial district to a competing supermarket developer. The petitioner owns and operates a 36,541 square foot supermarket in a commercial zone where the zoning ordinance limits the size of buildings to 40,000 square feet. Subsequently, a different company sought a variance to build a supermarket in a commercial zone with a size of 78,332 square feet, located 3.8 miles from the petitioner’s property. Although the petitioner participated in the zoning board hearings on the matter, the board denied petitioner’s motion for a rehearing on the grounds that petitioner was not a “person directly affected” by the decision, and thus without “legal standing” to contest the variance. The Superior Court agreed and petitioner appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The court explained that a person may have access to the courts for review if he or she is either a) a party entitled to participate in the case or b) any person directly affected thereby.  Hannaford Brothers Company v Town of Bedford, 64 A.3d 951 (NH 2013)  Here, the Court found that the petitioner was not a party to the case because it was not a direct abutter of the site (the sites were 3.8 miles apart). Therefore, petitioner had to prove it was “directly affected” by the variance. Petitioner’s objection to the variance was that it permitted a direct competitor operating the same type of business to build a much larger facility in the same type of zone in the same town. The Court rejected the argument, finding no standing and noting, “An appeal of a ZBA decision is not a weapon to be used to stifle business competition.”

1 comment:

  1. This result will probably lead to more cases where business competitors sponsor challenges of the kind described in the Rubloff case.