Market Basket

Superior Court Judge Amy Ignatius on Tuesday denied the North Conway Grand Hotel's motion to reconsider her decision that mostly affirmed the Conway Planning Board's approval of a proposed Market Basket grocery store. (DAYMOND STEER PHOTO)

CONWAY — A Carroll County Superior Court judge Tuesday denied the North Conway Grand Hotel's motion to reconsider her decision that mostly affirmed the Conway Planning Board's approval of a proposed Market Basket grocery store.

Bellevue Properties, owner of the North Conway Grand, sued the town last Dec. 7 and asked the court to review a series of approvals of Settlers Green’s plans for lot line adjustments and 74,491 square feet of retail space and associated infrastructure (the Market Basket store).

Bellevue was represented by Roy Tilsley of Bernstein Shur of Manchester; the town by Peter Malia of Hastings Malia of Fryeburg, Maine; and Settlers by Derek Lick of Sulloway & Hollis of Concord.

Bellevue’s objections basically had to do with traffic impact and parking.

Superior Court Judge Amy Ignatius issued a 13-page order April 23 and mostly agreed with the planning board, but she did ask the board to revisit the issue of parking.

The planning board May 23 reaffirmed that the parking standard used was adequate when it gave conditional site-plan approval last Nov. 8 to the store proposed to be built between Barnes Road and Common Court.

On June 24, Tilsley moved to set aside the board's May 23 decision. The motion asks the court to: reverse the board's decision to allow the 1999 parking standard instead of the 1982 standard; reverse the board's decision to waive parking regulations; find the April 23 order had not been met; and reverse conditional final site plan approval and instead deny the application.

In her order issued Tuesday, Ignatius said for a motion for reconsideration to be successful, an argument must be made that the court "overlooked or misapprehended" issues of law or fact.

Ignatius said Bellevue argued that under planning board regulations, the record should have reflected why the board chose to use the alternative parking standard. She reiterated her findings from April that the board could use the alternative standard and was not required to document its reasoning.

"Because Section 110-43 B of the planning regulations was wholly discretionary, and because the board's decision was plainly an exercise of its discretion, the court held that the board's decision was nether unlawful nor unreasonable," wrote Ignatius. "Accordingly, the court neither overlooked nor misapprehended any point of law or of fact."

Bellevue also argued that the court "misapprehended the board's ability to evaluate traffic flow in Settlers' Green based on what was submitted in the site plan review process," she noted.

"However, Bellevue raised the same or similar arguments in its trial memorandum, and the court fully addressed them in its April 23, 2019, order," wrote Ignatius.

"Accordingly, the court neither overlooked nor misapprehended any point of law or of fact for the reasons stated in its April 23, 2019 order.

"For the foregoing reasons, Bellevue's motion for reconsideration is DENIED."

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.