Christopher John Krochina v. Town of Meredith ( 2015 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0066, Christopher John Krochina v. Town
of Meredith, the court on November 19, 2015, issued the
following order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.
The petitioner, Christopher John Krochina, appeals the order of the
Superior Court (O’Neill, J.) dismissing his appeal of the decision of the Town of
Meredith Planning Board (board) conditionally approving the application of
neighboring property owners for a boundary line adjustment. The applicants
sought board approval to relocate the boundary line between their adjoining
properties so that it would conform to the existing location of their adjacent
driveways, which were encroaching on each other’s property. The petitioner,
an abutter, objected to the application, asserting that he owns part of the
property subject to the proposed boundary line adjustment. He argues that the
board’s decision to approve the application was unlawful and unreasonable
and that the trial court erred in dismissing his appeal.
The trial court’s review of a planning board decision is limited. Prop.
Portfolio Group v. Town of Derry, 163 N.H. 754, 757 (2012). The trial court
must treat the board’s factual findings as prima facie lawful and reasonable,
and cannot set the decision aside absent unreasonableness or identified error
of law. Id. “The trial court is not to determine whether it agrees with a
planning board’s findings, but rather whether there is evidence upon which
they could have been reasonably based.” Id. (quotation omitted). It is the
petitioner’s burden to demonstrate, by the balance of probabilities, that the
board’s decision was unreasonable. Id. We, in turn, will uphold the trial
court’s order unless it is unsupported by the record or legally erroneous,
looking to whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision
as did the trial court based upon the same evidence. Id. at 757-58.
The intervenors, Paul and Elaine Taylor, assert that there is no merit to
the petitioner’s claim that he owns part of the property subject to the boundary
line adjustment. Nevertheless, in recognition of the petitioner’s claim, the
board approved the application on the condition that “if a court determines
that [the petitioner] is in fact the owner of the land he claims, that
determination would invalidate this approval by the board.” As the board
correctly determined, and the trial court properly affirmed, the petitioner’s
disputed ownership claim is not a matter within the board’s jurisdiction. See
Short v. Town of Rye, 121 N.H. 415, 416 (1981) (dispute between private
parties over whether plaintiffs had right to certain roadway was not within
planning board’s jurisdiction). Accordingly, the board’s decision to approve the
application subject to this condition was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.
See Prop. Portfolio Group, 163 N.H. at 757-58.
The petitioner also argues that the application was incomplete and
deficient in several respects, and that the board erred in accepting it as
complete. He further argues that the board erred in approving the application
without the necessary variances, although he fails to explain what variances
were necessary. Nor does he articulate how his abutting property is impacted
by the application. We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments,
and we conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer,
149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v.
Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the
petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the trial
court’s order is unsupported by the record or legally erroneous. See Prop.
Portfolio Group, 163 N.H. at 757-58.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2