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.

BRODERICK, C.J. The petitioners, Preston T. Kelsey, II, Virginia R. Kelsey, Dirk J. Van Leeuwen, Frank Holloway, Ann Holloway, Robert McLaughry and Ann McLaughry, appeal the decision of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) upholding the dismissal of their appeal of a zoning permit granted by the respondent, the Town of Hanover (Town), to Jerry and Claire Strochlic. We affirm.

DUGGAN, J. In these consolidated cases, the petitioners, Christopher Bennett, Alycia Bennett, and Bennett Landscaping, Inc. (collectively Bennett), appeal two rulings by the Trial Court (McHugh, J.) concerning attorney’s fees. We hold that RSA 676:17, II (Supp. 2007) required the trial court to award attorney’s fees to the respondent, Town of Hampstead (town), because the town prevailed in its action for injunctive relief against the petitioners. We further hold that, because the trial court did not find that Bennett’s due process rights were violated, Bennett is not entitled to attorney’s fees for its declaratory judgment action against the town. Accordingly, 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.

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.

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.

Before the court is the Rye Board of Selectmen's ("BOS") appeal of a Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA") decision regarding a proposed condominium conversion sought by Intervenor 228 Maple Street, LLC, consolidated with 228 Maple Street, LLC's action bringing legal and equitable claims against the Town of Rye.

BRODERICK, C.J. This case comes before us on an interlocutory appeal without ruling, see Sup. Ct. R. 9, from the Superior Court (Groff, J.). It poses two questions: (1) Does RSA 231:28 require a petitioner requesting permission from the Selectmen to upgrade and reclassify an existing Class VI road to Class V standards to show occasion exists for the layout? (2) If the Court finds that the occasion analysis applies to the upgrade and reclassification under RSA 231:28, may the Selectmen consider as part of the occasion analysis the anticipated impact associated with the development that may result from the upgrade of the Class VI road to Class V status?

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.