Bourassa v. City of Keene, 5583

Decision Date06 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 5583,5583
Citation234 A.2d 112,108 N.H. 261
PartiesKenneth A. BOURASSA v. CITY OF KEENE et al.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Arthur Olson, Jr., and Lewis A. McMahon, Keene, for plaintiff.

Howard B. Lane, Keene, for intervenors, Theodore J. Jette and Alice G. Jette.

Eric J. Kromphold, Jr., City Sol., for City of Keene, filed no brief.

KENISON, Chief Justice.

The question raised in this case is whether a party can appeal the decision of a board of adjustment to the Superior Court without first applying for a rehearing before the board. RSA 31:74 in pertinent part reads as follows: 'Motion for Rehearing. Within twenty days after any order or decision of the board of adjustment * * * any party to the action or proceedings, or any person directly affected thereby, may apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined in the action or proceeding, or covered or included in the order, specifying in the motion for rehearing the ground therefor, and the board of adjustment * * * may grant such rehearing if in its opinion good reason therefor is stated in said motion.'

If RSA 31:74 stood alone it could be argued that the application for a rehearing was optional and permissive. But it does not. The succeeding section (RSA 31:75) provides in part that 'No appeal from any order or decision of the board of adjustment * * * shall be taken unless the appellant shall have made application for rehearing as herein provided. * * *' Furthermore the statute allowing an appeal is definitely tied in with the motion for rehearing. '31:77 Appeal from Decision on Motion for Rehearing. Within thirty days after the application for a hearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, then within thirty days after the decision on such rehearing, the applicant may appeal by petition to the superior court.'

The statutory scheme for zoning contemplates that the parties shall exhaust their administrative remedies prior to the court appeal. Annot. 136 A.L.R. 1378. See Bois v. City of Manchester, 104 N.H. 5, 177 A.2d 612; 2 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, s. 13-10 (3d ed. 1965). While there is no decision in this state that holds that the failure to apply for a rehearing prevents a valid appeal, that is the clear import of H.I.K. Corporation v. City of Manchester, 103 N.H. 378, 381, 172 A.2d 368.

It is contended that in this case a motion for rehearing would have been useless. Generally such motions do not result in change at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Carter v. City of Nashua
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 1973
    ...is to give it an opportunity to take remedial action. See Merriam v. Salem, 112 N.H. 267, 293 A.2d 596 (1972); Bourassa v. Keene, 108 N.H. 261, 234 A.2d 112 (1967). There is no specific statutory provision that any official determination made by vote at a meeting held in violation of RSA ch......
  • Hardiman v. Dover, No. 6306
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1971
    ...this issue in their petition for rehearing. RSA 31:74, 75; DiPietro v. Nashua, 109 N.H. 174, 246 A.2d 695 (1968); Bourassa v. Keene, 108 N.H. 261, 234 A.2d 112 (1967). In addition, plaintiffs did not raise the issue in their petition for appeal to the superior court, raised it only inconclu......
  • Metzger v. Town of Brentwood
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 30 Mayo 1975
    ...board of adjustment . . . shall be taken unless the appellant shall have made application for rehearing . . ..' Bourassa v. Keene, 108 N.H. 261, 262, 234 A.2d 112, 113 (1967). The master ruled, however that the plaintiffs did not have to comply with the statutory requirements since the issu......
  • V. S. H. Realty, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 78-083
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1978
    ...official in zoning matters fails to exhaust statutory remedies, a petition for injunctive relief will not lie. Bourassa v. City of Keene, 108 N.H. 261, 234 A.2d 112 (1967); Carrick v. Langtry, 99 N.H. 251, 108 A.2d 546 (1954). As we have stated before, this sound rule is based on the reason......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT