Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

November 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin of fact from the ZBA. The court said that "[ajlthough disclosure of specific findings of fact by a board of adjustment may often facilitate judicial review, the absence of findings, at least where there is no request therefor, is not in and of itself error." Moreover, the court concluded that the ZBA could have reasonably concluded that the Toys presented sufficient evidence of unnecessary hardship to satisfy RSA 674:33, I(b)(5). In so concluding, the court pointed to "several special conditions" of the Toys' newly purchased lot including: its irregular and unique shape; the fact that it contained wetlands and "challenging topographical features"; the fact that it was • positioned near other manufactured home parks; and the fact that those other manufactured housing parks were not permitted under the new zoning ordinance, which rendered the lot "unique in comparison to other properties in the area." See also: Kalil v. Town of Dummer Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 155 N.H. 307, 922 A.2d 672 (2007). Case Note: The City Council had also attempted to raise on appeal allegations of "conflict of interest or bias" on behalf of members of the ZBA who had previously voiced opposition to the zoning ordinance amendment that prohibited manufactured housing parks in the City. The appellate court rejected these allegations saying they had to have first been raised before the ZBA (in a motion for rehearing), and could not be introduced on appeal for the first time. Variance Landowners challenge variance denial for their existing, non -compliant home Among other things, they argue that because their home exceeded the lot coverage limitation long before they purchased it, that excessive lot coverage constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting a variance Citation: Corkery v. Municipality of Anchorage, 2018 WL 4375560 (Alaska 2018) 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters