The applicant submitted a site plan application to the planning board for approval of a five-unit elderly housing development. The board denied the application on the ground that the proposal did not provide the services and facilities needed to meet the physical and social needs of older persons. These special services and facilities are defined in a State administrative rule adopted by the Human Rights Commission, which the City had incorporated into a section of the Nashua Land Use Code.
The applicant contended that the denial was unreasonable because it would mean that the City was enforcing a rule of the State Human Rights Commission, which the applicant contended could only be enforced by the state agency. The Court disagreed, finding that the intent of the provision when read in light of the entire ordinance was to foster actual development of housing alternatives for older persons that included the basic supportive facilities and services described in the state rule. The Court upheld the denial of the application, holding that when the planning board factually determined that the proposal did not include these basic facilities or services, its decision was entitled to deference by the courts. The Court further found that mere inquiry into the facts of the application did not amount to improper local enforcement of a state agency administrative rule.