Chester Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Town of Chester

• Decision Date: 02 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2004–857.,2004–857.
• Citation: 883 A.2d 1034,152 N.H. 577
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
• Parties: CHESTER ROD AND GUN CLUB, INC. v. TOWN OF CHESTER.

152 N.H. 577

883 A.2d 1034

CHESTER ROD AND GUN CLUB, INC.

v.TOWN OF CHESTER.

No. 2004–857.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: May 10, 2005.

Opinion Issued: Sept. 2, 2005.

Normand & Associates, P.A., of Manchester (James A. Normand on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., of Manchester (Dean B. Eggert on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

GALWAY, J.

The defendant, the Town of Chester (Town), appeals from the order of the Superior Court (McHugh , J.) reversing the denial by the Town's zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) of a variance requested on behalf of the plaintiff, Chester Rod and Gun Club, Inc. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The record supports or the parties stipulated to the following facts. In September 2001, Town voters approved a warrant article that authorized Town selectmen to lease certain Town land so that a telecommunications tower could be built on it. Although the warrant article authorized the selectmen to enter into a lease with "SBA Towers," the selectmen did not do so.

In January 2003, AT & T Wireless and a telecommunications tower builder, National Tower, L.L.C. (National Tower), applied for a variance to construct a 150–foot telecommunications tower on the plaintiff's property. Obtaining the variance was necessary because a telecommunications tower is not a permitted use in the residential district in which the property is located.

Before the ZBA held a hearing on the variance application, AT & T Wireless negotiated a contract with the Town to construct a telecommunications tower on the Town land. On May 21, 2003, the Town entered into a lease with National Tower, on behalf of AT & T Wireless, to lease certain Town land so that National Tower could build electric and telephone facilities on it.

On July 1, 2003, the ZBA heard the variance application submitted on the plaintiff's behalf. Following the hearing, the ZBA denied the variance. The ZBA gave the following reasons for the denial:

1. Public Interest: The Board of Selectmen appeared before the ZBA and presented convincing evidence that the public interest of the Town was expressed by the citizens at the Town Meeting when they previously voted to locate a telecommunications facility on the Town Transfer Station property. The Town Warrant and the existence of a lease agreement with the Town for a telecommunications facility are both relevant to the question of public interest. The legislative body of a town is the ultimate law and policy making body and when the citizens vote as a legislative body, they express the public interest of the Town. In light of the co-location requirements of the Ordinance the granting of a variance would frustrate the ability of the Town to fulfill its pending lease agreement for a telecommunications facility on the Town Transfer Station property, and would frustrate the public interest established by the Town Warrant Article.

2. Hardship: The applicant has not shown that the granting of the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. The Town Warrant and the subsequent lease agreement establish public rights of the Town which will be injured by granting this variance.

See Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington, 145 N.H. 727, 732, 766 A.2d 713 (2001). The plaintiff moved for rehearing, which the ZBA denied, reiterating that "the town vote, the legislative body, does represent the town interest."

The Town and AT & T Wireless subsequently sought a variance to build a telecommunications tower on the Town land, which, like the plaintiff's property, is located in a residential district. This application was similar to the one submitted on the plaintiff's behalf. The ZBA approved the Town's application.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of the request for a variance submitted on its behalf to the superior court, which ruled in the plaintiff's favor. The court found that the ZBA improperly relied upon the September 2001 warrant article to conclude that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest and would injure the public rights of others. The court reasoned that the Town's "contract for the construction of a similar tower on its property is not a basis for the Board finding that it was not in the public interest to grant the variance in favor of the plaintiff." The court vacated the ZBA's decision and ordered it to grant the variance. This appeal followed.

We will uphold the trial court's decision unless the evidence does not support it or it is legally erroneous. Bacon v. Town of Enfield, 150 N.H. 468, 471, 840 A.2d 788 (2004). For its part, the trial court must treat all factual findings of the ZBA as prima facie lawful and reasonable. RSA 677:6 (1996). It "may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before [it], that the ZBA's decision was unreasonable." Simplex, 145 N.H. at 729, 766 A.2d 713.

The Town first argues that the trial court erred by ruling that the ZBA incorrectly defined the relevant public interest. To place this issue in context, we believe it helpful to review the requirements for obtaining a variance. To obtain a variance, an applicant must show that: (1) granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest; (2) special conditions exist such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship; (3) granting the variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance; (4) by granting the variance substantial justice is done; and (5) granting the variance does not diminish the value of surrounding properties. See Vigeant v. Town of Hudson, 151 N.H. 747, 751, 867 A.2d 459 (2005) ; see also RSA 674:33, I(b) (Supp.2004).

When, as here, a use variance is sought, applicants must establish unnecessary hardship by proof that: (1) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with their reasonable use of the property, considering the property's unique setting in its environment; (2) no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Vigeant, 151 N.H. at 751, 867 A.2d 459.

This appeal asks that we construe the requirements that the variance not be "contrary to the public interest" or "injure the public rights of others." These requirements are coextensive and are related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. See Bacon, 150 N.H. at 471, 840 A.2d 788. As one commentator has explained:

The standards which limit the power of administrative boards to vary the application of the zoning regulations in specific cases are intended to provide administrative relief in individual cases of unnecessary hardship, without injury to the rights of landowners other than the applicant, and without substantial interference with the community's plan for the efficient development of its land. Accordingly, an applicant for a variance must prove not only that a literal application of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship ..., but also that the variance he seeks will not harm landowners in the vicinity of his proposed site, or prevent the accomplishment of the purposes of the zoning scheme. The public interests are protected by standards which prohibit the granting of a variance inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, which require that variances be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, or which permit only variances that are in the public interest.

3 K. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 20.41, at 546–47 (4th ed.1996).

The first step in analyzing whether granting a variance would be contrary to the public interest or injurious to the public rights of others is to examine the applicable zoning ordinance. See Coderre v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Pawtucket, 105 R.I. 266, 251 A.2d 397, 401 (R.I.1969). "As the provisions of the ordinance represent a declaration of public interest, any variance would in some measure be contrary thereto." Heffernan v. Zoning Board of Review, 50 R.I. 26, 144 A. 674, 676 (1929) (emphasis added). Thus, to be contrary to the public interest or injurious to the public rights of others, the variance must "unduly, and in a marked degree" conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's "basic zoning objectives." Coderre, 251 A.2d at 401.

One way to ascertain whether granting the variance would violate basic zoning objectives is to examine whether it would "alter the essential character of the locality." Id.; see Young, supra § 20.43, at 554–55. As "the fundamental premise of zoning laws is the segregation of land according to uses," Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 78, 872 A.2d 990 (2005), "[a] variance must be denied if the proposed use will alter the essential character of the neighborhood," Young, supra § 20.43, at 554–55.

Another approach to determining whether granting the variance would violate basic zoning objectives is to examine whether granting the variance would threaten the public health, safety or welfare. "The dominant design of any zoning act is to promote the general welfare." Van Meter v. H.F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co., 170 Okla. 604, 41 P.2d 904, 911 (1935). "Since all zoning regulations are imposed under the police power," requiring that the variance not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare "probably applies whether or not it is spelled out in the ordinance."

Young, supra § 20.14, at 444–45; see Dow v. Town of Effingham, 148 N.H. 121, 126, 803 A.2d 1059 (2002).

Thus, for instance, in Carter v. Derry, 113 N.H. 1, 3, 300 A.2d 53 (1973), we upheld the zoning board's determination that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest because it would threaten the public health, safety or welfare. The plaintiff in that case sought a variance from...