Burke v. Town of Jaffrey

• Decision Date: 09 June 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-179,81-179
• Citation: 122 N.H. 510,446 A.2d 1169
• Parties: William A. BURKE v. TOWN OF JAFFREY.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 1169

446 A.2d 1169

122 N.H. 510

William A. BURKE v. TOWN OF JAFFREY.

No. 81-179.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

June 9, 1982.

Brighton, Fernald, Taft & Hampsey P.A., Peterborough (Silas Little, III, Peterborough, on brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Goodnow, Arwe, Ayer, Prigge & Gardner, Keene (William N. Prigge, on brief and John D. Wrigley, Keene, orally and on brief), for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

This case arises from the Superior Court's (Contas, J.) dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a decision of the Jaffrey Zoning Board of Adjustment. We affirm.

Plaintiff applied to the board of adjustment for a special exception to erect fifty-six condominium units to be contained in seven different buildings on a 23.96 acre lot having a frontage of approximately 1,115 feet on Route 137 in Jaffrey. This application was a revised plan of a prior submission by the plaintiff to erect seventy units on the same parcel of land.

Section VI. H. of the "Land Use Plan For The Town of Jaffrey" (Revised March 11, 1980) provides "Guidelines for Board of Adjustment-Special Exceptions" as follows:

"1. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Board of Adjustment shall, before grant[ing] Special Exceptions, find that, in its judgment all the following conditions are met:

a. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure or condition.

b. The use or activity will not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor significantly alter the characteristic of the district.

c. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.

d. Such exceptions, if granted, would not adversely affect any other district or portion thereof."

Hence, in order to warrant the granting of an exception, an applicant must present to the Jaffrey Board of Adjustment satisfactory proof that all the requirements of Section VI. H. of the "Land Use Plan" have been met.

In denying plaintiff's prior seventy-unit application, on January 24, 1980, the board made the following statement:

"That while in the Board's opinion the site is appropriate for condominiums, the construction of 70 such units would significantly alter the rural character of the district. There was insufficient information provided at the hearing to insure that proper facilities will be provided and a site inspection leaves doubt that this site would support such concentration of population."

On April 8, 1980, the board of adjustment unanimously denied plaintiff's amended petition for fifty-six units on the following grounds:

"That although reducing the number of units from 70 to 56, there was a minimal amount of additional information presented ... to demonstrate that adequate and appropriate facilities could be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The Board also finds that said new information was insufficient. Furthermore, the construction of 56 [condominium] units would significantly alter the rural characteristic of the district."

It was eminently clear from the board's stated conclusions after both hearings that it was convinced that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proving the existence of two of the four required conditions for the granting of a special exception. First, the board's conclusions revealed that the plaintiff failed to satisfy section VI. H.1.c., which requires that "[a]dequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use." Second, the board's findings indicated that the plaintiff did not satisfy section VI. H.1.b., which requires that "[t]he use or activity will not ... alter the characteristic of the district."

Following the board's denial of the plaintiff's motion for rehearing, the plaintiff appealed to the superior court under RSA 31:77 (Supp.1981). The trial court found from the evidence, the exhibits, and a view, that the board's decision was not unlawful. Persuaded by the balance of probabilities that the board's decision was not unreasonable, the court dismissed the appeal. See Belanger v. City of Nashua, 121 N.H. 389, 391, 430 A.2d 166, 168 (1981).

We have recently held, and the Jaffrey "Land Use Plan" clearly states, that there must be sufficient evidence before the board of adjustment to support a favorable finding on each of the requirements for a special exception. See Barrington East Owners' Assoc. v. Town of Barrington, 121 N.H. 627, 630, 433 A.2d 1266, 1268 (1981). On appeal, all findings of the board must be deemed prima facie reasonable and lawful. RSA 31:78 (Supp.1981). The trial court therefore may not set aside a decision of the board of adjustment "except for errors of law, unless the court is persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said ... decision is unreasonable." Id.; see Belanger v. City of Nashua, 121 N.H. at...