NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Douglas R. Guy, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Hampsey, J.) upholding the Temple Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (ZBA) denial of his application for a junkyard license. See generally RSA 236:110-:129 (1993 & Supp. 2007). We reverse and remand.

GALWAY, J. The petitioners, Ryder Daniels and Gary Morrissette, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) upholding the decision of the defendants, Town of Londonderry and the Town of Londonderry Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), allowing the intervenor, Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint), to build a wireless communications tower in an agricultural-residential zone. We affirm.

DUGGAN, J. The plaintiff, Derry Senior Development, LLC, appeals an order of the Trial Court (Coffey, J.) upholding the denial of its application for site plan approval of an independent adult community development in the Town of Derry (town) by the Town of Derry Planning Board (board). We hold that, because the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) approved the plaintiff’s proposed sewage disposal system, the town has enacted no standards more stringent than the DES standards, see N.H. Admin. Rules, Env-Ws 1000-1025 (1999) (amended and readopted as Env-Wq 1000-1025 (2008)), and the record reveals no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff’s proposed system would not adequately protect all water supplies, the board unreasonably and unlawfully denied the plaintiff’s application for site plan approval. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

The petitioner, Terry M. Bennett, M.D., brought an action under RSA chapter 91-A seeking an order requiring the New Hampshire Board of Medicine ("Board") to hold certain of its deliberations in public sessions. The Court held a hearing on the matter on December 12, 2005 and issued an order on December 15, 2005. Before the Court are the Board's Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Stay the Court's December 15, 2005 order. The petitioner objects to both motions. Considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

The petitioner, Edward J. Bleiler, brought a petition for declaratory judgment against the current city manager of Dover, J. Michael Joyal ("Joyal"), and the City of Dover ("Dover") (collectively "the respondents") alleging Joyal violated the City Charter. The petitioner alleges the respondents unlawfully entered into contracts without obtaining the City Council's approval after a public hearing. On June 23, 2006, the respondents moved for summary judgment arguing the petitioner's claim is moot due to the City Council's subsequent ratification of the contracts. On July 31, 2006, the petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion for summary' judgment and seeks rescission of the subject contracts. After reviewing the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

On May 10, 1993, the Court held a hearing on the above-captioned action. The plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of New Hampshire who reside in Lee, Durham, or Madbury. These towns are in School Administrative Unit #5 (hereinafter "SAU 5"), which is made up of the Oyster River Cooperative School District (hereinafter the District"). The defendant, John Powers, is the superintendent of SAU 5. The defendant Oyster River School Board (hereinafter *the Board") has the authority to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the Oyster River Teachers' Guild of SAU 5. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds the following facts.

Pursuant to RSA 491:22, the plaintiffs seek a decree invalidating a Dover City ordinance which rezoned seven acres of City-owned land. The defendant objects. The court held a hearing on the merits and conducted a view of the subject property. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiffs' petition is GRANTED.

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Korean Methodist Church of New Hampshire (Church), appeals the denial by the Superior Court (Coffey, J.) of its preliminary objection to the declaration of taking filed by the State. See RSA 498-A:9-a, :9-b (Supp. 2007). We affirm.

NADEAU, J. The defendant, City of Manchester (city), appeals a decision by the Trial Court (Lynn, J.) that interprets RSA 485:14 (2001) to require approval by the voters of each municipality in which residents use water provided by the Manchester Water Works (MWW) before MWW can provide fluoridated water to any residents of the community. We affirm.

The plaintiffs in this action are nineteen individuals who reside either in Manchester or in the surrounding towns of Auburn, Bedford, Goffstown, Hooksett and Londonderry. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant City of Manchester (City) arising out of the Manchester Water Works' (MWW) allegedly unlawful action in implementing a water fluoridation program through the addition of a substance known as hydrofluorisilic acid (hereinafter "HFS") to the public water supply serving Manchester and portions of the other towns.