I.Without limiting the jurisdiction vested in any court in the state, and subject to the appointment of a presiding justice by the governor with the consent of the executive council as provided in this section, the supreme court may establish by court order not inconsistent with this section, a land use review docket in the superior court which shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of local land use boards, including, but not limited to decisions of municipal planning boards, zoning boards, historic district commissions, and conservation commissions. The jurisdiction of this docket shall not include appeals of decisions by state agencies.
II.The governor with the consent of the executive council may appoint the first presiding justice of the land use review docket, who s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I. Without limiting the jurisdiction vested in any court in the state, and subject to the appointment of a presiding justice by the governor with the consent of the executive council as provided in this section, the supreme court may establish by court order not inconsistent with this section, a land use review docket in the superior court which shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of local land use boards, including, but not limited to decisions of municipal planning boards, zoning boards, historic district commissions, and conservation commissions. The jurisdiction of this docket shall not include appeals of decisions by state agencies.
II. The governor with the consent of the executive council may appoint the first presiding justice of the land use review docket, who shall be qualified by reason of such person's knowledge and experience in land use and real property law. The first presiding justice of the land use review docket shall be an additional justice of the superior court, which shall increase by one the number of authorized justices of the superior court as provided in RSA 491:1. The chief justice of the superior court, following the appointment or designation of the initial presiding justice, may designate such additional justices to preside over cases assigned to the land use review docket, as necessary, based upon caseload, disqualification of the presiding justice, or efficient allocation of judicial resources.
III. The presiding justice of the land use review docket shall be an associate justice of the superior court and shall be entitled to the compensation and benefits provided to all such justices under applicable law, including, but not limited to, RSA 491-A:1 and RSA 100-C.
IV. The workload of the presiding justice of the land use review docket shall be the matters before that docket. The presiding justice may be assigned to any other matter within the jurisdiction of the superior court or sit by designation on any other court in the same manner as any other associate justice of the superior court, as determined to be necessary by the chief justices of the superior and supreme courts.
V. Subject to the provisions of this section, all appeals to superior court filed pursuant to RSA 677 and all proceedings for such appeals, shall be assigned to the land use review docket, including motion practice, discovery, injunctive relief, alternative dispute resolution, and hearing on the merits. Nothing in this section shall affect the concurrent jurisdiction of the housing appeals board to hear appeals within its jurisdiction brought pursuant to RSA 679.
VI. The court shall hold a structuring conference within 30 days of its receipt of the notice of appeal. At the structuring conference the court shall set a deadline for the filing with the court of the certified record and shall schedule a hearing on the merits to be held within 60 days of receipt of the certified record. The court shall issue a decision on the merits within 60 days of the hearing. The court may extend any of the deadlines established in this paragraph upon agreement of the parties or for other good cause shown, but if the extension is based upon good cause, the court shall articulate in its order granting the extension the specific facts and circumstances that warrant the extension.