Robert Blechl Staff Writer
New Hampshire’s land use court is questioning an October Littleton Planning Board rehearing regarding the contested gravel pit in Littleton that has been in litigation for several years.
In 2023, the planning board granted an excavation permit for Chris Crowe, who operates an abandoned 2.2-acre gravel pit on his property off Alder Brook Road, near the Bethlehem town line.
The closest abutters, John and Mary Polaski of Bethlehem, have filed actions in superior court contesting both planning board and zoning board approvals and have cited concerns about noise, emissions, and adverse impacts to natural resources, wildlife, and abutting residents’ quality of life.
In 2019, Crowe, who bought the property in 2018, began unpermitted excavations at the site before Littleton issued him a cease-and-desist order until a permit was obtained.
In June 2024, Judge Michael Klass of Hillsborough Superior Court, which is now the state’s land use court, reversed the planners’ excavation permit approval after concluding that the board did not consider whether a reclamation bond, used to restore the land once gravel operations end, was necessary. . .
in September and October . . . the board again approved the excavation permit.
But the Polaskis, through their attorney, Sheridan Brown, argue that the planning board again failed to comply with the New Hampshire statute on earth excavations when, lacking jurisdiction, they reopened a prior hearing in which a final decision had been issued; reached a decision unsupported by evidence sufficient to find absence of harm to public welfare; failed to impose reasonable conditions to protect abutters from excavation impacts; and deprived the Polaskis of due process and equal protection “by limiting the scope of its unlawfully reopened hearing.”
They also argue that the previous planning board 1991 required a clear reclamation plan for the prior owner, who appeared to have never excavated.
Brown filed a motion for another rehearing, which planners denied in November.
He later filed a motion with the court for clarification.
In a court order issued Monday, Klass said the “Court did not intend to permit a public hearing limited to only certain issues. Had that been the Court’s intent, it would have retained jurisdiction over the case and specifically remanded the matter with instructions.
“Rather, the Court envisioned an entirely new, duly noticed, public hearing at which the applicant and the public could participate,” he wrote. “The Court is uncomfortable providing the parties with specific guidance on potential legal disputes that are not ripe before the Court. To the extent that disputes arise between the parties in concert with a new hearing, such issues will be addressed on appeal, in due course, as necessary.”
A remote status conference is scheduled for March 25 for the parties to discuss the matter and the court’s intent and find a way forward.
On Tuesday, summarizing the latest court decision, Brown said, “The Court has agreed with the Polaskis that the Littleton Planning Board acted outside its jurisdiction by reopening proceedings on Crowe’s application for an excavation permit and by limiting the scope of those proceedings. It was the Court’s expectation that proceedings would begin anew if at all.”
. . .
Full article at: