Rye Beach Village Dist. v. Beaudoin, No. 6344
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | DUNCAN |
| Citation | 114 N.H. 1,315 A.2d 181 |
| Parties | RYE BEACH VILLAGE DISTRICT v. Maurice BEAUDOIN et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 6344 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1974 |
Page 181
v.
Maurice BEAUDOIN et al.
Page 182
[114 N.H. 2] Casassa & Mulherrin, Hampton, and Perkins, Holland, Donovan & Beckett, Robert B. Donovan, Exeter, for plaintiff.
James A. Connor and Eaton, Eaton, Ross, Moody & Solms, Manchester (Clifford J. Ross, Manchester, orally), for defendants.
DUNCAN, Justice.
The plaintiff seeks by this bill in equity to enforce its zoning ordinance with respect to property of the defendants within the district. Title to the land stands in the name of the defendant corporation, At Last, Inc., while the seven structures situated thereon are in the names of the eight individual defendants, consisting of four married couples who hold 999-year leases from the [114 N.H. 3] corporate defendant. There was a hearing before the Court (Keller, C.J.) who made certain findings of fact and transferred to this court exceptions of the parties and five questions of law without ruling as hereinafter more particularly appears.
We find no merit in the defendants' attack upon the validity of the district's several zoning measures, reflected in the first three transferred questions as follows: '1. Did Chapter 195 of the New Hampshire Laws of 1905 effectively establish the Rye Beach Village District? 2. Did Chapter 292 of the New Hampshire Laws of 1937 effectively confer zoning powers upon the Rye Beach Village District? 3. Is the Rye Beach Village District Zoning Ordinance as enacted in 1937, and amended in 1957 and 1963, valid?'
Although Laws 1905, ch. 195 establishing the district failed to describe an easterly boundary line, the description embodied in the statute commences and ends at the 'Atlantic ocean', and the easterly boundary was clearly intended to coincide with a portion of the boundary of the town of Rye of which the district is a part. See State v. Zetterberg, 109 N.H. 126, 244 A.2d 188 (1968). The boundaries described are sufficiently specific to exclude any reasonable possibility of mistake. See also Hampton v. Palmer,102 N.H. 127, 131, 153 A.2d 796, 799 (1959).
The fact that the call of the first meeting of the district was addressed to the 'inhabitants qualified to vote in district affairs' rather than to 'legal voters residing' therein (Laws 1905, 195:2) does not impress us as a viable ground of attack.
Similarly, the fact that the title of Laws, 1937, ch. 292, conferring zoning and planning powers upon the Rye Village District, referred to it as a 'precinct district' rather than a 'village district', the term used in the body of the act, cannot be held to vitiate exercise of the powers conferred upon the district by section 1 of the act. Vera &c. Co. v. State,78 N.H. 473, 102 A. 463 (1917).
Page 183
The defendants also question the validity of the district's 1937 zoning ordinance upon the grounds of lack of a comprehensive plan, and failure to provide notice of the proposed[114 N.H. 4] zoning enactment by posting at two public places as required by statute. P.L. 57:2, now RSA 52:2. The fact that the zoning ordinance provides for a single zone or district only does not establish lack of a comprehensive plan, in view of the character of the district. Plainfield v. Hood, 108 N.H. 502, 240 A.2d 60 (1968); Rochester v. Barcomb, 103 N.H. 247, 253, 169 A.2d 281, 285 (1961).
One of the two places of posting notice of the district meeting was the Rye Beach Club, which the trial court found was 'not a public place'. If correctly found not public in the sense that the club was not publicly owned, the record however showed it to be public in the sense that it was frequented by members of the public to an extent calculated to furnish adequate public notice. Russell v. Dyer, 40 N.H. 173, 187-188 (1860); see McKinney v. Riley, 105 N.H. 249, 197 A.2d 218 (1964).
Any lingering doubt concerning the validity of adoption of the ordinance is dispelled by the provisions of Laws 1970, ch. 69, legalizing the proceedings of 1937, since the notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turco v. Town of Barnstead, No. 91-127
...Under New Hampshire law, there can be no estoppel by an unauthorized statement of an official, Rye Beach Village Dist. v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 6, 315 A.2d 181, 184 (1974); Smith v. Town of Epping, 69 N.H. 558, 560, 45 A. 415, 416 (1899). Authority cannot be created by estoppel, State v. Hu......
-
City of Concord v. Tompkins, 83-019
...party bringing the estoppel claim on the representation or concealment must have been reasonable. See Rye Beach Village Dist. v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 7, 315 A.2d 181, 184 (1974). Reliance is unreasonable when the party asserting estoppel, at the time of his or her reliance or at the time o......
-
Wieck v. District of Columbia, Bd. of Zoning, No. 10639.
...to raise an estoppel. See City of Evanston v. Robbins, 117 Ill.App.2d 278, 254 N.E.2d 536 (1970); Rye Beach Village District v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 315 A.2d 181 (1974); Salt Lake County v. Kartchner, 552 P.2d 136 (Utah Our inquiry has not ended, however, until we consider the application ......
-
Beaudoin v. Rye Beach Village Dist., No. 7299
...declared void. Various issues raised by the parties in that case were transferred to this court. In Rye Beach Village District v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 315 A.2d 181 (1974), we held that the Village District zoning ordinance was valid and that the Village District was not estopped from enfor......
-
Turco v. Town of Barnstead, No. 91-127
...Under New Hampshire law, there can be no estoppel by an unauthorized statement of an official, Rye Beach Village Dist. v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 6, 315 A.2d 181, 184 (1974); Smith v. Town of Epping, 69 N.H. 558, 560, 45 A. 415, 416 (1899). Authority cannot be created by estoppel, State v. Hu......
-
City of Concord v. Tompkins, 83-019
...party bringing the estoppel claim on the representation or concealment must have been reasonable. See Rye Beach Village Dist. v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 7, 315 A.2d 181, 184 (1974). Reliance is unreasonable when the party asserting estoppel, at the time of his or her reliance or at the time o......
-
Wieck v. District of Columbia, Bd. of Zoning, No. 10639.
...to raise an estoppel. See City of Evanston v. Robbins, 117 Ill.App.2d 278, 254 N.E.2d 536 (1970); Rye Beach Village District v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 315 A.2d 181 (1974); Salt Lake County v. Kartchner, 552 P.2d 136 (Utah Our inquiry has not ended, however, until we consider the application ......
-
Beaudoin v. Rye Beach Village Dist., No. 7299
...declared void. Various issues raised by the parties in that case were transferred to this court. In Rye Beach Village District v. Beaudoin, 114 N.H. 1, 315 A.2d 181 (1974), we held that the Village District zoning ordinance was valid and that the Village District was not estopped from enfor......