Cited by

is a ‘decision of the planning board’ from which an aggrieved party may appeal under” RSA 677:15, I, Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984), superseded, in part, by statute, Laws 1986, 57:1; and (2) “a conditional approval imposing only conditions subsequent constitutes a final decision appealable under RSA 677:15, I.” Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 564 (2010).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984).

We generally require issues to be raised at the earliest possible time “because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328 (1984).

See, e.g., Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984); Collden Corp. v. Town of Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 747, 750-51 (2010).

Portfolio Group v. Town of Derry, 154 N.H. 610 (2006), or its predecessor, RSA 36:34, see Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321 (1984); Totty v. Grantham Planning Board, 120 N.H. 388 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds by Winslow v. Holderness Planning Board, 125 N.H. 262, 269 (1984).

v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642, 654-55 (2000) (party cannot raise an issue for the first time in motion for reconsideration when the issue was readily apparent at the time the party initially filed for relief); Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328 (1984) (a party may not be entitled to judicial review of matters not raised at the earliest possible time).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328-29 (1984) (although planning board failed to hold compliance hearing, site plan approval was final).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327, 480 A.2d 149 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984) (decided under prior law).

Star Vector Corp., 146 N.H. at 493 (upholding planning board’s denial of site plan approval for use permitted by zoning because of unacceptable public safety and environmental risk to neighborhood to which applicant proposed no mitigation); Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984) (board’s authority to impose conditions provides tool “to adjust the pursuit of private interests to reasonable regulation in the public interest”).

See, e.g., Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 323 (1984).

“We require issues to be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328 (1984) (citation omitted).

“We require issues to be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328 (1984) (citation omitted).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984) (a party may not be entitled to judicial review of matters not *655 raised at the earliest possible time).

ore than four years after Penrich filed the petition for declaratory judgment and after this court first reviewed the case in Penrich I. We have long recognized the principle that “issues [should] be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984).

As we have noted when reviewing a planning board’s ability to attach conditions, “[i]f the board could not impose a condition subsequent, both towns and applicants would lack a tool to adjust the pursuit of private interests to reasonable regulation in the public interest.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327, 480 A.2d 149, 152 (1984).

Although we recognize our long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised at the earliest possible time, see Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984), the rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.

RSA 676:4, 1(c) (Supp. 1989); RSA 674:44, IV (Supp. 1989); see also Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327, 480 A.2d 149, 152 (1984).

It is a long-standing rule that parties “may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of trial.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 326-28, 480 A.2d 149, 152-53 (1984) (planning board could impose conditions both precedent and subsequent in giving preliminary approval to a site plan).

This is only fair to the trial forums and the appellate courts.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984) (citation omitted).

Their belated attempts to inject the statutory issues into the appeal at this point therefore run afoul of our rule that “issues [must be] raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct [claimed] errors in the first instance.” Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 32, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984) (citation omitted).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984).

In support of its position, Sawmill cites the two cases, inter alia, of Appeal of Town of Hollis, 126 N.H. 230, 490 A.2d 775 (1985) and Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 480 A.2d 149 (1984).

Daboul v. Town of Hampton, 124 N.H. 307, 309, 471 A.2d 1148, 1149 (1983); see also Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984) (issues should be raised at trial in order to give the trial forum an opportunity to reach sound conclusions and to correct alleged errors).

Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 153 (1984).

Just as reasonable conditions may be attached by a zoning board of adjustment to approval of a variance to a zoning ordinance, Carter v. Nashua, 113 N.H. 407, 417-18, 308 A.2d 847, 854 (1973), or by a planning board to approval of a site plan, Sklar Realty, Inc. v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 328, 480 A.2d 149, 152 (1984), so too may the PUC attach reasonable conditions in consideration of the interests of local residents when it grants a utility’s petition for exemption from zoning ordinan

Sklar Realty, Inc. v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 480 A.2d 149 (1984).