Alfano Law Office, PLLC

Alfano Law Office, PLLC
Phone: (603) 856-8411 • Fax (603) 290-5521
4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301
  • Home
  • Real Estate Law
    • Road Law
    • Commercial Real Estate Law
    • Tax Abatements
    • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • About Us
    • Paul J. Alfano, Real Estate Attorney
    • John F. Hayes, Attorney
    • Terrie Harman, Attorney
    • Privacy Policy
  • Articles
  • Contact Us
    • Directions
  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates
You are here: Home / Legislation / NH Supreme Court Holds Municipal Technical Review Group is not a Public Body Subject to Right-to-Know Law

NH Supreme Court Holds Municipal Technical Review Group is not a Public Body Subject to Right-to-Know Law

NH Supreme Court Holds Municipal Technical Review Group is not a Public Body Subject to Right-to-Know Law

New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law, RSA Chapter 91-A, is a powerful tool in requiring transparency in governmental decision-making. The law requires the government to conduct public business in meetings that are open to the public. This encourages accountability and transparent decision-making.

The Right-to-Know law applies to all public bodies including unelected advisory committees that provide recommendations on proposed policy matters. For example, municipal planning boards act as advisory boards in recommending ordinance amendments to local governmental bodies. They are required to hold open, public meetings.

However, it is not always clear when a regular meeting of governmental employees behind closed doors crosses the threshold and triggers the open-meeting requirements of the Right-to-Know law. This question was at issue in the NH Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. City of Rochester, issued on June 9, 2020.

Martin v. City of Rochester

The Martin case involved the City of Rochester’s administrative Technical Review Group (TRG) – an informal committee of government employees from various departments tasked with aiding applicants in meeting code requirements for their development requests. The city manager created this administrative board primarily to help the request move smoothly through the various development processes. For example, a single commercial development request actually involves separate applications and approvals from numerous city departments. It often may require a rezoning, subdivision approval, environmental permits and mitigation, right-of-way and utility connection approvals, site plan approval, dimensional variances, infrastructure improvements, and building permits prior to opening the doors. Technical review committees bring leaders from these various departments together in one room to discuss various compliance issues with the applicant.

The plaintiff in Martin, a real estate developer, sued the city arguing that the TRG violated the Right-to-Know law by not holding meetings open to the public; however, the NH Supreme Court disagreed, holding the TRG was not a public body subject to the Right-to-Know law. The case primarily turned on whether the TRG fell within the Right-to-Know law’s definition of “advisory committee.”

The Decision

The court held the TRG was not an advisory committee subject to the law – primarily because it found the TRG, as a committee, did not provide advice or recommendations to a decision-making authority like the planning board or town council. Instead, the court described the function of the TRG as an informal method for each TRG member to raise concerns on the application on behalf of their respective departments. In the absence of the TRG, the applicant would still have to meet with each TRG member’s department separately to discuss compliance with their requirements.

Essentially, the court felt the TRG’s purpose was not to provide a unified recommendation or advice to the planning board on whether or not it should approve or deny the development request. In the court’s view, the primary factor in determining whether a staff committee is an advisory committee subject to the Right-to-Know law is whether its purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the planning board.

In addition, a meeting of government staff members is more likely to be exempt from the Right-to-Know open meeting requirements if the staff committees:

    • Are administratively created by, and under the sole authority of, the city manager or other chief executive (and not the city council or other decision-making body).
    • Do not have any final decision-making authority, and instead are primarily meant to provide feedback to the applicant.
    • Do not formally provide a unified recommendation to the planning board on whether the application meets the elements of approval for the development request.
    • Cannot hold up an application from moving forward to the planning board hearings process.

In Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s Martin decision may appear relatively straightforward, but the realities of local government decision-making on development requests are more nuanced. The staff members can play an outsized role in the approval process and greatly influence the ultimate decisions by planning boards. While each technical review committee member may be commenting from the perspective of their individual departments, these comments in the aggregate are considered by the planning board and arguably form a de facto recommendation on whether the planning board should approve or deny the application. Planning boards regularly not only consider these comments but also incorporate them into their final decisions – by making approvals contingent on the applicant resolving the technical review committee’s concerns.

Paul J. Alfano, Esq.
You can reach Paul Alfano at paul@alfanolawoffice.com or (603) 226-1188. You can also contact the office here.

Filed Under: Court Updates, Legislation Tagged With: planning and zoning, right-to-know law, RSA 91-A, technical review group

The above information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Important Registry Updates
Important Court Updates

Subscribe to the Alfano Law Property Rights Alert

Sign Up Now

For Email Newsletters you can trust.
Allobar Strategies

NH Tax Abatement

  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates

NH Real Estate Law Articles

  • Common Neighborly Legal Issues
  • Court Updates
  • Easements
  • Estate Planning
  • General
  • Historic Designation
  • Legal Terms
  • Legislation
    • Business Law
  • New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts
  • Private Road Maintenance
  • Private Roads
  • Property
  • Property Investments
  • Property Rights
  • Property Tax Law
  • Quieting Title
  • Real Estate Law
  • Revocable Trust
  • Road Law
  • Tax Abatement
  • Taxes
  • Zoning Boards of Adjustments

Recent Articles

Private Roads and Easements – What’s the Difference?

You probably think there should be a difference between … [Read More...]

Environmental Clean Up on a Property – Who is Responsible?

Environmental issues are everywhere. Hazards like heavy … [Read More...]

Reasons to Review Your Estate Plan

Have you taken the time to set up your estate plan? If you … [Read More...]

What to Know About Maintaining, Repairing, and Extending Easements on a Property

An easement is a piece of land that people, other than the … [Read More...]

Article Archives

  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • October 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • May 2011
  • July 2010
  • December 2005
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Alfano Law Office, PLLC, 4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301 USA | Phone: (603) 856-8411
Copyright © 2022 · Alfano Law Office, PLLC. All Rights Reserved · Website design by InterActive Synergy, LLC