Elderly housing developers, Raisanen Homes and Toddy Brook Investments, appealed to the Housing Appeals Board (HAB) when the Hollis Planning Board denied plan acceptance of their proposed 40-unit project. After completing conceptual consultation and design review, the planning board rejected plan acceptance for three reasons: (1) failure to comply with the general standards of the Hollis Zoning Ordinance related to housing for older persons; (2) failure to provide a detailed water supply report; and (3) failure to comply with subdivision regulations related to road and driveway design standards.
On reversing the decision of the planning board, the HAB concluded that the board unlawfully denied the application as incomplete. The HAB found that “the record in this appeal reveals that the Applicant completed the subdivision application and checklist provided by the Town.”
On further appeal to the NH Supreme Court the town argued that it was appropriate for the planning board to consider some level of substantive review to ensure zoning compliance prior to accepting an application as complete. The court disagreed pointing out that whether an application is “complete” is an administrative task by which a planning board ensures only that the applicant has provided sufficient information to allow the board to proceed with consideration and to make an informed decision as to whether the proposed development satisfies basic requirements. Furthermore, the town’s subdivision regulations defines a completed application as one that provides all of the submissions and fees noted in a checklist found in the appendix to the subdivision regulations.
In upholding the decision of the HAB the court essentially ruled the Hollis Planning Board had engaged in a substantive review of developers’ application, rather than simply determining whether the checklist of items for plan acceptance had been satisfied.