The trial court also found that the petitioner's decision to approach the Board for preliminary conditional approval “before applying for permits and before generating all data that might have supported the application” was a “tactical decision,” and not an error attributable to the Board. A. Application of Perry Senior Development, LLC v. Town of Derry Relying on Derry Senior Development, LLC v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 951 A.2d 170 (2008), the petitioner asserts that “[m]eeting state and federal agency requirements creates a presumption that the proposal protects the public interest,” and “the record of denial should state the deficiencies of the application that pose a threat to the public interest beyond the environmental and safety issues with which the application must necessarily comply before permits will issue.” It argues that the trial court erred in affirming the Board's decision because the Board failed to cite specific facts to demonstrate why the state and federal permitting process would not adequately safeguard the Town's interests. The petitioner misreads our case law.

[¶12] RSA 674:44 (2016) governs the adoption of local site plan review regulations. When a planning board adopts site plan regulations, they "must, among other things, '[d]efine the purposes of site plan review' and '[s]pecify the general standards and requirements with which the proposed development shall comply.'" Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 448 (2008) (quoting RSA 674:44, III(b), (c)). Provisions that "[d]efine the purposes of site plan review" differ from those that "[s]pecify the general standards and requirements with which the proposed development shall comply." Id.

This conclusion, however, does not suggest that, outside the limited application of Article VIII, Section B, the Town may regulate wetlands without first enacting an ordinance or regulation pertaining to wetlands pursuant to the relevant enabling legislation. See, e.g., Derry Sr. Development, LLC v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 447-48, 951 A.2d 170 (2008). B. Preemption Claim

A municipal board is entitled to rely upon its own judgment and experience, but it may not deny a variance on an ad hoc basis because of vague concerns, and its decision must be based upon more than the unsubstantiated personal opinion of its members. See Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 451 (2008). In contrast, the respondents' septic designer described the system and explained that it was approved by the Department of Environmental Services.

We conclude that the ZBA member's comments were "vague concerns" based on the member's personal opinions and were not an adequate basis to conclude that granting the variance request would result in the diminution of property values. See Derry Sr. Development v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 451 (2008) (explaining that a "board may not deny approval on an ad hoc basis because of vague concerns" and "the board's decision must be based upon more than the mere personal opinion of its members").

In sum, given the evidence before the Council, we cannot conclude that Condition 21's ambiguities render the Council's decision unlawful. See RSA 541:13 ; Appeal of Garrison Place Real Estate Inv. Trust, 159 N.H. 539, 543-44, 986 A.2d 670 (2009) (reversing a Wetlands Council decision partly because DES's determination that a permit condition requiring the permittee to gather data on the impact of the permit satisfied statutory wetlands protection requirements was entitled to deference); cf. Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 452-53, 951 A.2d 170 (2008) (concluding that a planning board arbitrarily and unreasonably denied approval of a site plan because "nothing in the record" supported the board's justifications for denying approval). We note that DES has discretion to enforce Condition 21 by, inter alia, revoking or suspending the TLR-III permit if it concludes that WMNH is failing to satisfy Condition 21's requirements and does not take action to remedy those failures.

Nonetheless, a board's decision must be based on more than the mere personal opinion of its members. Id. ; see also Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 451, 951 A.2d 170 (2008) (board may not deny approval on an ad hoc basis because of vague concerns). In this case, the certified record fails to reveal any objective evidence supporting the trial court's decision.

Our review of the superior court's decision is deferential. Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 447, 951 A.2d 170 (2008). We will uphold the decision unless it is unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous.

Our review of the trial court's decision is deferential. Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 447, 951 A.2d 170 (2008). We will uphold its decision on appeal unless it is unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous.

Our review of the trial court's decisions is deferential. Derry Senior Dev. v. Town of Derry, 157 N.H. 441, 447, 951 A.2d 170 (2008). We will uphold the decisions on appeal unless they are unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous.