<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://nhcaselaw.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Zoning</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/taxonomy/term/80</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Cardinal Development Corporation v. Town of Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2007-849 (N.H. S.Ct., Oct. 8, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/1108</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;HICKS, J. The petitioner, Cardinal Development Corporation (Cardinal), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Arnold, J.) dismissing its appeal from the Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for lack of jurisdiction, due to the untimely filing of a motion for reconsideration. We affirm.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/files/cardinaldevelopment.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/1108#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/company/cardinal-development-corporation">Cardinal Development Corporation</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/organization/lane-bently-pc">Lane &amp;amp; Bently P.C.</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/organization/superior-court">Superior Court</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/organization/upton-hatfield-llp">Upton &amp;amp; Hatfield LLP</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/city/winchester-zoning-board-adjustment">Winchester Zoning Board of Adjustment</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:47:09 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1108 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Guy v. Town of Temple, 2007-784 (N.H. S.Ct., Aug. 21, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/839</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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 &amp;amp; Supp. 2007). We reverse and remand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/files/guy.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/839#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:51:38 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">839 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Kelsey, et al. v. Town of Hanover, 2007-702 (N.H. S.Ct., Aug. 20, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/834</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/files/kelsey.pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/834#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:58:26 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">834 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Bennett, et al. v. Town of Hampstead, 2007-662 (N.H. S.Ct., Jul. 11, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/744</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/744&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/744#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:09:10 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">744 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Derry Senior Development, LLC v. Town of Derry, 2007-569 (N.H. S.Ct., Jul. 2, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/690</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/690&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/690#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:57:30 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">690 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Allen, et al. v. City of Dover, 00-E-0231 (Strafford, Jan. 16, 2002)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/494</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE&lt;br /&gt;
STRAFFORD, SS  SUPERIOR COUR&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Guilford Allen, Brik Sweetser, and&lt;br /&gt;
Wayne and Patricia Taylor&lt;br /&gt;
v.&lt;br /&gt;
City of Dover&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;00-E-0231&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDER&lt;br /&gt;
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&#039; petition is GRANTED.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/files/allen-strafford(2).pdf&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/494#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:37:06 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DLG</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">494 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Nine A, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield, 2007-475 (N.H. S.Ct., Jun. 3, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/491</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/491&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/491#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:05:20 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">491 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>228 Maple Street, LLC v. Town of Rye, 04-E-0237 (Rockingham, Jun. 7, 2006)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/468</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Before the court is the Rye Board of Selectmen&#039;s (&quot;BOS&quot;) appeal of a Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment (&quot;ZBA&quot;) decision regarding a proposed condominium conversion sought by Intervenor 228 Maple Street, LLC, consolidated with 228 Maple Street, LLC&#039;s action bringing legal and equitable claims against the Town of Rye. The property at issue is a 1.29-acre property on Ocean Boulevard in Rye, New Hampshire currently containing 10 cottage-type units and one residential unit; the cottage-type units have been used and rented seasonally.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/468&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/468#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/company/228-maple-street-llc">228 Maple Street LLC</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/provinceorstate/new-hampshire">New Hampshire</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/city/rye">Rye</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/organization/rye-board-selectmen">Rye Board of Selectmen</category>
 <category domain="http://nhcaselaw.com/category/organization/rye-zoning-board-adjustment">Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:01:46 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DLG</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">468 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Green Crow Corp. v. Town of New Ipswitch, 2007-559 (N.H. S.Ct., May. 30, 2008)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/439</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;
(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?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/439&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/439#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:11:16 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>NHCaseLaw.com</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">439 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Controlled Asset Investment Group Development Corp. v. Town of Hookset, 05-E-277 (Merrimack, Apr. 27, 2006)</title>
 <link>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/420</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE&lt;br /&gt;
MERRIMACK, SS.      SUPERIOR COURT&lt;br /&gt;
Controlled Asset Investment Group Development, LLC&lt;br /&gt;
V.&lt;br /&gt;
Town of Hooksett&lt;br /&gt;
No. 05-E-277&lt;br /&gt;
ORDER&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The petitioner, Controlled Asset Investment Group Development, LLC, seeks a declaration that the Growth Management Ordinance (&quot;GMO&quot;) 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&#039; arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as&lt;br /&gt;
follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://nhcaselaw.com/document/420&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://nhcaselaw.com/document/420#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 00:48:04 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DLG</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">420 at http://nhcaselaw.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
