Appeal of Lake Sunapee Protective Ass'n, 165 N.H. 119

Background

The State (F&G) sought DES permits to build a two-ramp public boat launch with parking on the 3.3-acre Wild Goose parcel of a 135-acre State-owned site on Lake Sunapee; the State acquired the land to provide public boat access.
F&G submitted an alternatives analysis and acknowledged the project would violate two minimum shoreland-protection standards (waterfront buffer tree-point requirement and natural woodland buffer unaltered-vegetation percentage).
DES issued a shoreland impact permit (January 7, 2009) and an amended permit (May 22, 2009) allowing the boat launch and limiting impervious cover; plans did not show the local 75-foot setback.
Petitioners (Lake Sunapee Protective Association and Town of Newbury) appealed to the Wetlands Council arguing DES violated RSA 483-B:9, IV-b (must permit public water access only "as necessary and consistent with" Act and other state law) and RSA 483-B:3, II (must apply more stringent local setback).
The Wetlands Council upheld DES (except on a separate, non‑raised ground), finding no way to build a ramp that complied with all minimum standards and that DES properly reviewed the project against the Act’s purposes; petitioners appealed to the NH Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DES violated RSA 483-B:9, IV-b by issuing a permit without showing the project was "necessary" and consistent with the Act's purposes and other state law	Petitioners: DES failed to evaluate whether the boat launch (or its size) was necessary, considered only two of the Act's 16 purposes, failed to analyze conflicts with RSA 233-A and RSA 162-C, and did not make specific statutory findings	DES: "As necessary" means a permit is required for the project to proceed; DES need not second-guess need/design reserved to other agencies and did review the project against the Act's purposes and standards	Court: Affirmed DES — "as necessary" means necessary for completion of the project; DES properly considered the Act's purposes and had adequate record support; DES need not enforce or police other agencies' statutes (RSA 233-A, 162-C) in this permitting context
Whether DES was required to enforce a more stringent local 75-foot shoreland setback under RSA 483-B:3, II	Petitioners: The local 75-foot setback is more stringent than the Act's 50-foot rule and DES must apply the more stringent local standard	DES/Wetlands Council: RSA 483-B:3, II does not apply to this RSA 483-B:9, IV-b approval; additionally, State projects are generally exempt from local zoning restrictions absent clear legislative intent	Court: Affirmed Wetlands Council — petitioners challenged only the exemption rationale, but the Council’s primary ground (RSA 483-B:3, II does not apply to IV-b approvals) stands and is sufficient to uphold the decision

Key Cases Cited

Appeal of Garrison Place Real Estate Inv. Trust, 159 N.H. 539 (N.H. 2009) (standard of review for Wetlands Council factual findings)
In re Christopher K., 155 N.H. 219 (N.H. 2007) ("shall" as mandatory command)
Appeal of Geekie, 157 N.H. 195 (N.H. 2008) (avoid literal statutory reading producing absurd result)
Ocasio v. Fed. Express Corp., 162 N.H. 436 (N.H. 2011) (consistent meaning of statutory terms across provisions)
Appeal of City of Nashua, 138 N.H. 261 (N.H. 1994) (distinguishing adjudicative findings requirements)
Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. 314 (N.H. 2006) (agency actions versus adjudicative proceedings)
Region 10 Client Mgt., Inc. v. Town of Hampstead, 120 N.H. 885 (N.H. 1980) (state generally exempt from local zoning rules absent clear legislative intent)
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (N.H. 1993) (appellate discretion to decline extended consideration of non‑dispositive arguments)