Salmonsen v. Town of Rindge
| Decision Date | 31 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6488,6488 |
| Citation | 113 N.H. 46,299 A.2d 926 |
| Parties | Robert SALMONSEN et al. v. TOWN OF RINDGE et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William D. Tribble, Manchester, and Aaron A. Lipsky, Jaffrey (Tribble, Manchester, orally), for plaintiffs.
Peter S. Espiefs, Keene, by brief and orally, for Daniel R. Kilty, Intervenor.
The issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs' appeal from an order of the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Rindge after rehearing, granting a variance to the intervenor, Daniel R. Kilty, was a timely one. The problem is one of statutory construction and the governing statute provides in pertinent part that the appeal to the superior court is to be taken 'within thirty days after the action complained of, has been recorded' RSA 31:77. Also pertinent is RSA 31:68 which provides in part that the official actions of the board 'shall be immediately filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record.'
The reserved case reads in part as follows: 'Hearing on said motion was had before the Court; no witnesses testified; but the order of the Board of Adjustment dated September 28, 1971, was admitted into evidence; the intervenor Daniel R. Kilty offered over the objection of the appellant, what purported to be the unverified transcript of the hearing before the Board of Adjustment on the appellant's petition for re-hearing and said purported transcript although not marked as an exhibit, was considered by the Court; to which the appellant duly excepted; all questions of law raised by the foregoing exceptions appearing in the transcript or appendix are reserved and transferred,' by Grant, J.
The plaintiffs' appeal was filed with the superior court on October 27, 1971, which was forty-three days after the decision was announced and recorded by the board of adjustment at its September 13, 1971 rehearing. At that time the board voted 'in open executive session' to adhere to its original decision granting the variance stating that no new factual evidence had been presented to the board. Counsel for the parties were present at this time and the decision recorded in the minutes of the board.
Plaintiffs maintain that since they did not receive official written notice of the denial of the rehearing until September 30, 1971, their appeal was timely and should be determined from the date that written notice was actually received. This is an arguable point but we believe that it is not a valid one. The statutes do not require official written notice. Counsel were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Jay Realty Trust v. City of Franklin
...not predicated on a timely motion for rehearing or brought within the thirty-day period. The city relies generally on Salmonsen v. Rindge, 113 N.H. 46, 299 A.2d 926 (1973) (appeal from ZBA), which held that "the tenor of the zoning decisions on procedural limits is generally strict and freq......
-
Downing v. Monitor Pub. Co. Inc.
...a genuine issue of fact. Town of Gilmanton v. Champagne, 116 N.H. 507, 508-09, 363 A.2d 411, 412 (1976); see Salmonsen v. Rindge, 113 N.H. 46, 48, 299 A.2d 926, 927 (1973). If the defendant had contended that there was no genuine issue of fact with respect to the falsity of the statement, i......
-
Schwartz v. State Dept. of Revenue Admin., s. 90-331
...114 N.H. 744, 746, 329 A.2d 141, 142 (1974) (appeal period runs from date of order or decision by zoning board); Salmonsen v. Rindge, 113 N.H. 46, 48, 299 A.2d 926, 927 (1973) (expressly noting that appeal period runs from date action complained of is recorded, not time of receipt of notice......
-
McGovern v. City of Manchester, 87-394
...746, 329 A.2d 141, 142 (1974) (20-day period for motion for rehearing under RSA 31:74 (1970), now RSA 677:2); Salmonsen v. Rindge, 113 N.H. 46, 48, 299 A.2d 926, 927 (1973) (30-day appeal period after board action under RSA 31:77 (1970), now RSA 677:4). However, the time of decision rule re......