Burr v. City of Keene
| Decision Date | 30 December 1963 |
| Citation | 105 N.H. 228,196 A.2d 63 |
| Parties | Robert R. BURR et al. v. CITY OF KEENE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Cristiano & Kromphold, Keene, for plaintiffs.
Homer S. Bradley, Jr., Keene, for Emile J. Legere, Elm City Garden Apartments, Inc. and the City of Keene.
The major question presented by both appeals is whether someone other than the owner of the real estate may petition for a special exception under the Keene zoning ordinances.
RSA 31:66 provides that the local legislative body shall provide for the appointment of a board of adjustment and pursuant to the authority of the statute '* * * shall provide that the said board may, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance in harmony with its general purpose and intent * * *.'
Pursuant to the enabling act RSA 31:60-89 Keene has adopted a zoning ordinance and among others has adopted provisions for special exceptions (Keene Zoning Ordinances Sec. 50-501) the pertinent provisions of which (par. j) provide that a special exception may be granted if the property meets the following qualifications:
It is conceded that the zoning ordinance does not expressly provide who may apply for a special exception and the question has not been raised here before. However the plaintiff argues that since the zoning ordinance (50-502) with respect to granting a variance speaks only of the owner of the property it must logically follow that only the owner may apply for a special exception since the difference between the two types of relief are not great. Stone v. Cray, 89 N.H. 483, 200 A. 517.
While it is true as we said in Stone, supra that '* * * in practice sharp distinctions between exceptions and variances may not in all cases, be readily made * * *' there is a major difference between the two since there is no necessity for a hardship to exist in order to qualify for a special exception. RSA 31:72 II, III. An option holder cannot qualify for a variance since such a petitioner cannot suffer the hardship of the owner, which is one of the necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin Marietta Aggregates v. Board of County Com'rs of Leavenworth County
...necessary for the grant of a variance. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found such a distinction significant in Burr v. Keene, 105 N.H. 228, 230, 196 A.2d 63 (1963): "It is conceded that the zoning ordinance does not expressly provide who may apply for a special exception and the question ha......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen of Town of Chapel Hill
...and other data which under ordinance requirements, must accompany any application for a special use permit. See Burr v. City of Keene, 105 N.H. 228, 196 A.2d 63 (1963). In Arant v. Board of Adjustment, 271 Ala. 600, 126 So.2d 100, 89 A.L.R.2d 652 (1961), the Supreme Court of Alabama held th......
-
Richards v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Wilton
...313; Board of Adjustment v. Board of Education, 326 P.2d 800 (Okl.); although there is authority to the contrary; see, e.g., Burr v. Keene, 105 N.H. 228, 196 A.2d 63. A holder of an option to lease has been held to have standing to request a variance. See Board of Adjustment v. Shanbour, 43......
-
Taco Bell v. City of Mission
...to prove the need for a variance, such was not the case with a special use permit. The court adopted the reasoning of Burr v. Keene, 105 N.H. 228, 230, 196 A.2d 63 (1963), which "As pointed out by counsel for the defendants no useful purpose would have been served by requiring the owners' s......