Hypothetically speaking on Ridgeline application

Because the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment chose to create threatening zombies out of Ridgeline’s applications for a special exception and a variance, Winchester residents can’t forget about potential risk to their peaceful well-being, and just move on. The neither-dead-nor-alive determination of the ZBA only invites further anxiety, scrutiny and most of all ... questions.
Did town counsel advise the ZBA to act on a hypothetical situation (land sale may be reversed) rather than on the actual situation (legal landowner requested withdrawal of the applications from consideration)? That would seem odd ... perhaps even suspicious.

Yet the board, upon leaving a nonpublic session in which they discussed only “legal information regarding Ridgeline application,” voted (without discussion) to table the applications. It would be even more odd for the board not to follow legal advice received.

When Ridgeline filed its lawsuit requesting a reversal of the land sale, the terms of its sales agreement became public. Ridgeline originally asked for 45 days to acquire all necessary permits (plus a 30-day extension) before closing. That was later extended multiple times.

I look forward to reading the arguments of the plaintiff and defendants as the lawsuit proceeds, and I can’t help but ponder some of the questions that may arise.

One question screams out above all others. Why would a business, obviously backed by big money, represented by a top-tier law firm that surely knows the intricacies of land-use laws and permitting processes, believe that it could sail through the ZBA, receive approval for a site plan before the planning board, acquire a wetlands permit from the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, perform soils tests and acquire septic approval, and obtain all other permits required, in a mere 45-75 days?

Ignorance? Arrogance? ... Assurance?

In theory, the court will administer justice. What would that entail?

What would be the consequences of a property sale reversal? The seller would have to return the purchase price to the buyer. What if that money had already been expended and the seller was unable to comply? That might leave the buyer with no recourse but to sue a bloodless stone. Would that be just?

Would the court consider the seller’s ability to refund the sale price in arriving at its decision? Is Ridgeline suing the new owner in attempts to undermine its right to equal justice as an innocent party?

Certainly a court couldn’t require a seller to not only lose a proven buyer, but also pass up other potential buyers, for an indefinite period of time. Would that be just? No.

So a court would have to limit the amount of time the seller would be mandated to let Ridgeline hold its property hostage. What would be a fair and reasonable time to deny a seller access to its wealth, particularly in the face of what are arguably steep — and more likely insurmountable — odds for permitting success? Three months? Six months? Two years? Ten years?

It really all boils down to one question. How responsible is a property seller for the ignorance, arrogance or confidence of a potential buyer?

I know what my answer would be.

But I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I don’t know the legal weight of the phrase “for now” added to the agreement termination notice, nor do I know if “seller’s agent,” from whom the words came, was legal counsel or just a real estate agent expressing a personal hope that another buyer would back out and the Ridgeline agreement would be revived and yield a commission.

SUSAN M. NEWELL

Winchester