07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2010 1 Volume 4 ) No. 9 ~) In 2006, Aichinger sought clarification from the town regarding the legal status of lot 7. Specifically, she wanted to know if she could treat her Property as.separate waterfront parcels. Eventually, the town's Director of Planning informed Aichinger that her Property was "legally two (2) lots." He explained that the tax map had shown only a single lot because of "an old zoning ordinance that was thrown out in a court challenge and [wa]s no longer on the books." Thereafter, Aichinger began work to remove all existing buildings on her Property and to construct two new single-family homes—one on lot 9 and one on lot 10. In furtherance of that plan, Aichinger, among other things: obtained permits; contracted for construction; and mortgaged lot 9 to fund the construction on lot 10. In May 2007, the Planning Director informed Aichinger that his ad- vice had been in error. Aichinger, in fact, owned a single merged lot. Aichinger appealed to the town's Zoning Board of Adjustment. How- ever, eventually, the town and Aichinger entered into a settlement agreement under which the town agreed that: Aichinger's Property consisted of two separate parcels; and the town would not support any action to merge the two lots. In July 2007, an abutting landowner, Rita Sutton, filed suit in the (_ Superior Court. Among other things, Sutton sought: an injunction to prevent Aichinger from developing the property in violation of the town's zoning ordinance; and a declaration from the court that the town was not estopped (i.e., legally barred because of its prior misrep- resentations to Aichinger) from enforcing its Merger Ordinance. The Superior Court eventually ruled that: lots 9 and 10 had been le- gally merged for over 20 years; the town was not municipally estopped from treating the property as one parcel; and that the only way for Aichinger to. create two lots would be to subdivide the merged prop- erty. Still, the Court denied Sutton's request to bar construction on the Property, ruling that Aichinger had the right to replace the existing ga- rage and guest house on lot 9 with a new structure, regardless of the property's merged status. Both parties appealed. Among the arguments on appeal was Aich- inger's argument that: even if lots 9 and 10 had merged pursuant to the town's Merger Ordinance, the town, because of the misrepresenta- tion made by the Planning Director and relied on by Aichinger, was estopped from enforcing the Merger Ordinance against her Property. . The Court's Decision: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed_in part. Among other things, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the town was not estopped from enforcing the Merger Ordi- nance against Aichinger's Property. This was because any reliance 0 2010 Thomson Reuters 49