Glidden v. Town of Nottingham, 5732
| Decision Date | 23 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5732,5732 |
| Citation | 109 N.H. 134,244 A.2d 430 |
| Parties | Shirley GLIDDEN et al. v. TOWN OF NOTTINGHAM et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Shaw & Eldredge, Carleton Eldredge, Exeter, for plaintiffs.
Perkins, Holland & Donovan, William H. Beckett and Robert B. Donovan, Exeter, for defendants, Bassetts.
John P. Regan, Portsmouth, for defendant, town, filed no brief.
Appeal from the decision of the board of adjustment of the town of Nottingham granting a variance to Alfred W. and Phyllis E. Bassett allowing them to establish a commercial boat livery and gasoline and grocery retail business in an area classified as a 'Lake Residence District' under the provisions of the town's zoning ordinance. Trial before a master (Leonard C Hardwick) with a view resulted in a report recommending the dismissal of the appeal. The Trial Court, Dunfey, J., approved the master's report and reversed and transferred the plaintiffs' exceptions.
Cahill Realty, Inc. began in 1941 the sale of lots located on the eastern end of Pawtuckaway Lake in Nottingham. Some fifty shore lots had been sold at the time this case was brought and plaintiffs are some of the owners of property thus acquired. In 1965 Cahill Realty, Inc. sold the property which is the subject of the present dispute to the defendants Alfred W. and Phyllis E. Bassett.
In 1960 the town of Nottingham adopted a zoning ordinance which classified the Cahill Realty, Inc. property, including that now owned by both the plaintiffs and defendants, as a 'Lake Residence District.' This district is described in the ordinance as 'mainly a district of single family dwellings for recreational and seasonal use.' The defendants at the time of purchase proposed to construct the facilities they have now obtained the variance for. The proposed use at that time was opposed by the selectmen for the town of Nottingham in a suit to enjoin the defendants on the grounds that the use was only permissible if the application and site met the approval at a public hearing of the lake improvement association concerned, the selectmen and the board of adjustment. This court in Fernald v. Bassett, 107 N.H. 282, 217 A.2d 177 held that the provision in the zoning ordinance providing for defendants' proposed use to be thus considered was invalid and therefore the commercial use proposed by defendants was prohibited by the ordinance.
Defendants then applied to the board of adjustment for a variance to permit the proposed grocery, gasoline station and boat livery which was granted. The master found that the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof that the decision of the board of adjustment was unreasonable or unlawful or that errors of law were committed in arriving at the decision.
The plaintiffs in their brief and argument urge the variance granted by the Nottingham board of adjustment was unlawful. The argument of the plaintiffs is based principally upon a claim that the variance granted constitutes 'spot zoning' and is therefore invalid. This argument misconstrues 'spot zoning' which is the improper creation by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New London v. Leskiewicz
...of zoning ordinances.' Ackley v. Nashua, 102 N.H. 551, 554, 163 A.2d 6, 9 (1960) (citations omitted); Glidden v. Nottingham, 109 N.H. 134, 135, 244 A.2d 430, 431 (1968). A variance has been defined as authority granted to the owner to use his property in a manner otherwise violative of the ......
-
Vannah v. Town of Bedford
...of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said order or decision is unjust or unreasonable.' RSA 31:78; Glidden v. Nottingham, 109 N.H. 134, 244 A.2d 430 (1968). At the hearing before the master, the plaintiffs had the burden of proving that the order of the Board of Adjustment deny......
-
Carter v. City of Nashua
...of the zoning board granting the variance was not unjust or unreasonable or based on errors of law. RSA 31:78; Glidden v. Nottingham, 109 N.H. 134, 244 A.2d 430 (1968); Wentworth Hotel, Inc. v. New Castle, 112 N.H. 21, 287 A.2d 615 We have examined the various evidentiary exceptions taken b......
-
Barton v. City of Manchester
...placed on him the burden of proving the original action of the board was 'unjust or unreasonable.' RSA 31:78; Glidden v. Nottingham, 109 N.H. 134, 136, 244 A.2d 430, 431 (1968); Sweeney v. Dover, 108 N.H. 307, 309, 234 A.2d 521, 522 (1967). Where counsel thus agreed, the ruling became the l......