View Single Post
Old 04-08-2019, 04:43 PM   #123
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 3,986
Thanks: 1,200
Thanked 1,492 Times in 970 Posts
Default Corrs pushed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....
Not sure. As I read the timeline, the Corrs followed the normal curse (Freudian typo) in the statutes. They appealed to the Wetlands Board, were approved and were all ready to go. DES issued the C & D in an appeal of the Wetlands Board Approval which basically overrode DES. That's their function as an appeals board. The Corrs already had what they wanted. Why would they be pushing DES to the SCNH?
Were there missteps along the way? It appears so, but in part the ZBA and Wetlands Board are supposed to review and make their rulings. We hear a lot about the building's (new) location, but not much about the ZBA or Wetlands Bord hearings. Presumably, DES made their case at the Wetlands Board and were unconvincing. ZBA and, I think, Wetlands, are both quasi-judicial and take sworn testimony, which none of us witnessed. We have the LDS article that was probably written over a couple of days. Considering the time constraints of the news cycle, LDS was probably reasonable in its reporting. Many days later, we have lots of speculation about various "facts", but no self-identified lawyer silly enough to weigh in here. In the meantime, I think this is great thread that lets us all know we need to pay attention and how difficult it is to pay attention when you're absent for extended periods. We'll probably all forget, but it will be interesting to see if a bill gets filed next year to clarify the current RSA.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote