NHCaseLaw.com

Petitioners, Suzanne and Todd Adamcryck, bring this pro se appeal of the decision of the City of Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA" or "the Board") granting variance requests by the intervenor, Laconia Savings Bank ("LSB"). The City and LSB object to the relief requested by the petitioners. After hearing and upon consideration of the parties' oral and written arguments, the record, and applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, Nine A, LLC, challenges a Superior Court (Sullivan, J.) order affirming decisions of the Chesterfield Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) denying variance applications for development of a parcel of land bordering Spofford Lake in Chesterfield. On appeal the plaintiff argues that the superior court erred in finding that the requested variances violated the spirit of Chesterfield’s zoning ordinance and were contrary to the public interest and that the superior court erred in not finding that the plaintiff satisfied the remaining variance requirements. We affirm.

The petitioner, Controlled Asset Investment Group Development, LLC, seeks a declaration that the Growth Management Ordinance ("GMO") adopted by the Town of Hooksett in 2005 is unconstitutional. The parties have agreed that the issue presented is a matter of law and have accordingly filed cross motions for summary judgment. Considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

HICKS, J. The plaintiff, Robert E. Naser d/b/a REN Realty, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) upholding decisions of the defendant, the Town of Deering Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), ruling that his subdivision application failed to comply with the town’s zoning ordinance and denying his request for a variance. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The extended history of this case can be found in North Country Environmental Services, Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem, 146 N.H. 348, 350-52 (2001). At stake are the interests of the Town of Bethlehem (Town) in exerting local control over the expanding private landfill operations of North Country Environmental Services, Inc. (NCES) within Town boundaries, and the interests of NCES in pursuing the essential job of accepting and processing municipal solid waste, subject to the State’s comprehensive plan for Solid Waste Management, RSA 149 – M.

The plaintiff, the Town of Lyndeborough (town), instituted this action against the defendants Boisvert Properties, LLC, Barbara Blaisdell Boisvert and Laurent Boisvert (the Boisverts), seeking to prevent them from allowing their property to be used as part of the state trail system for the operation of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRVs) without first obtaining site plan approval from the town’s planning board. The State of New Hampshire (State), acting on behalf of the department of resources and economic development (DRED), the Granite State ATV Association (association), and a group of the defendants’ neighbors (the “near neighbors”) were subsequently granted permission to intervene in the case to represent their respective interests. Presently before the court is the issue of whether the town’s land use regulations are preempted by the state statute governing OHRVs, RSA chapter 215-A (2000 and Supp. 2002). I conclude that RSA 215-A preempts the town from requiring the defendants to obtain site plan approval as a prerequisite to permitting public use of trails which have been accepted by DRED as part of the state OHRV trail system, but that the statute does not preclude the town from regulating certain other aspects of OHRV use on the subject property.

The plaintiff, Great Bridge Properties, LLC (“Great Bridge”), is a development company that exclusively develops multifamily affordable housing. The defendant, the Town of Ossipee (“the Town”), is a town in Carroll County, New Hampshire. The Town has a zoning ordinance that provides that new multifamily housing may only be developed in its Village District, and such new development is limited to existing structures that are currently, or are capable of being, tied into the Town sewer system. Multifamily housing projects must be limited to four or fewer units per structure on a particular lot. Great Bridge, after attempting to obtain variances to construct a housing development with six four-unit buildings in the Town’s Village District, brought this action, claiming the Town’s zoning ordinances are unconstitutionally restrictive and discriminatory based on family status. Great Bridge seeks a builder’s remedy, which would, in effect, allow them to construct the project as designed. Tammy and Michael Reed and Rhonda MacNeil, all of whom are low income residents of Ossipee (“the intervenors”), intervened in this case on behalf of Great Bridge.

The petitioners, Gail Page, Francine Philippe, and Douglas Ponusky, appeal the decision of the City of Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “ZBA”) granting the intervenor, Whispering Heights, LLC’s, request for a variance from certain requirements of the City of Concord Zoning Ordinance (the “ordinance”). The Court held a hearing on the petitioners’ appeal. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.