City of Keene v. Blood
| Decision Date | 28 November 1958 |
| Citation | 146 A.2d 262,101 N.H. 466 |
| Parties | CITY OF KEENE v. Elton W. BLOOD et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Ernest L. Bell, III, City Sol., Keene, for plaintiff.
Howard B. Lane, Keene, for defendants, furnished no brief.
The first issue in the case is whether the installation of 'combination units' in two of the rooms on the third floor of the premises violated section 2A(1) of the Keene zoning ordinance. This ordinance sets up a single-residence district and provides as follows: 'No third floor shall be designated or occupied as an apartment, or used for cooking or other living purposes except for sleeping rooms * * *.'
No issue was raised by the parties as to whether the use of the first and second floors violated the ordinance and no issue was raised as to whether the prior use of hot-plates and coffee percolators on the third floor constituted a violation of the zoning ordinance. This was stated by the Trial Court as follows: 'The City does not claim in this action that the use made of the rooms prior to the installation of the combination units was in violation of the ordinance, but it does claim that the installation changed the rooms to apartments and that this is a violation of the [ordinance].' As already pointed out in the statement of facts the combination units consisted of a sink, electric stove and an electric refrigerator, combined together in one structural unit. None of the rooms on the third floor were connected for water or the sewer prior to the installation of the combination units. Their installation required new plumbing, water and sewage connections and special electric wiring.
The Trial Court ruled that the rooms on the third floor, after the installation of the combination units, were single rooms used for light housekeeping, were not complete dwelling units and were not apartments. In making this ruling consideration was given to section 2B of the ordinance which permits in a single-residence district: 'Boarding house, furnished room house, or accommodations for tourists or overnight guests; provided that, if a house already contains two families, no rooms shall be rented out unfurnished or for light housekeeping.'
In the absence of any definition of the terms used in the Keene zoning ordinance, it is difficult to determine when the use of furnished light housekeeping rooms stops and the use of apartments begins. Scanlan v. LaCoste, 59 Colo. 449, 149 P. 835, L.R.A.1915F, 664. This is true in this case even though the facts are substantially without dispute. Cedar Rapids Investment Co. v. Commodore H. Co., 205 Iowa 736, 740, 218 N.W. 510, 512, 56 A.L.R. 1098. See also, Evans v. Roth, 356 Mo. 237, 201 S.W.2d 357; Sitzler v. Lathers, 223 App.Div. 675, 229 N.Y.S. 47. However for the purposes of this case it is unnecessary to determine what constitutes an apartment.
The Keene zoning ordinance (2 A 1) not only prohibits apartments on the third floor (with an exception not in issue here) but also provides that the third floor shall not be 'used for cooking or other living purposes except for sleeping rooms.' The installation of the combination units provided a stove for cooking and sink and electric refrigerator for living purposes within the meaning of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was more restrictive than would have been the case if the prohibition were limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New London v. Leskiewicz
...extension and enlargement of nonconforming uses. Arsenault v. Keene, 104 N.H. 356, 359, 187 A.2d 60, 62 (1962); Keene v. Blood, 101 N.H. 466, 469, 146 A.2d 262, 264 (1958); Annot., 87 A.L.R.2d 4, 10 (1963). However, the use cannot be interpreted in such a way as to unlawfully reduce the ori......
-
New London Land Use Ass'n v. New London Zoning Bd. of Adjustment
...law to construe strictly zoning ordinance provisions which provide for the continuation of nonconforming uses. Keene v. Blood, 101 N.H. 466, 469, 146 A.2d 262, 264 (1958). The policy of zoning law is to carefully limit the enlargement and extension of nonconforming uses. Arsenault v. Keene,......
-
Lachapelle v. Town of Goffstown
...to expand, multiply or perpetuate nonconforming uses. Edgewood Civic Club v. Blaisdell, 95 N.H. 244, 61 A.2d 517; City of Keene v. Blood, 101 N.H. 466, 469, 146 A.2d 262, and cases cited. "Any conceivable statute enacted under the police power, and regulating the use of property, must neces......
-
Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton
...to these problems is not to build more new roads and widen existing roads. That only compounds the problem. In Keene v. Blood, 101 N.H. 466, 469, 146 A.2d 262, 264 (1958), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held: Zoning regulations, to be effective, both in theory and in practice, must be enac......