Cited by

Old Street Barn v. Town of Peterborough, 147 N.H. 254, 258 (2001) (concluding argument was not preserved because it was not raised in plaintiff’s motion for rehearing or considered by the superior court); Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 511-12 (2010) (concluding arguments not raised in motion for reconsideration before ZBA were not preserved).

“Read together, RSA 677:15, I, and RSA 676:5, III establish two separate avenues of appeal from a decision of the planning board, depending upon the nature of the claim.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 508 (2010).

“Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s pleadings sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

of the application.” Rather, the Town contends that, because August 28 (the date the Planning Board’s written August 21 decision was issued) “is the operative date from which an administrative appeal was to be filed, Mr. O’Connor’s appeal was timely as he filed within 20 days of [that] date.” Relying primarily upon RSA 676:5 (Supp. 2014) and our decision in Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503 (2010), the petitioners counter that the trial court correctly determined that O’Connor’s appeal

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

RSA 676:5, III (2008); see also Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 509 (2010) (explaining that “when a planning board makes a decision applying or interpreting a zoning ordinance, that decision must be appealed to the zoning board of adjustment”).

“Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether the allegations contained in the [petitioners’] pleadings sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Although we interpret a statute in light of its overall purpose, see Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 508 (2010), in so doing, we do not ignore the statute’s plain language, cf. 2A N. SINGER & J.D.

n any consideration by a court unless the court for good cause shown shall allow the appellant to specify additional grounds.” This “statutory scheme is based upon the principle that the local board should have the first opportunity to pass upon any alleged errors in its decisions so that the court may have the benefit of the board’s judgment in hearing the appeal.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 511-12 (2010) (quotation omitted; emphasis added).

The statutory scheme “is based upon the principle that the local board should have the first opportunity to pass upon any alleged errors in its decisions so that the court may have the benefit of the board’s judgment in hearing the appeal.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 511-12 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010).

“Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether the allegations contained in the plaintiffs pleading sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted.” Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507, 8 A.3d 159, 162 (2010) (quotation omitted).

We note that this holding is consistent with our recent holding in Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503 (2010).