Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

g.g. May 25, 2005 -- Page 7 The only evidence before the court was Salyer's testimony that the sole use of the building was agriculturally related. Unless the zoning inspector could show Salyer was using the building for commercial purposes, the building was not a commercial building. see also: C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 376 N.E. 2d 578 (1978). see also: Myers v. Garson, 614 N.E. 2d 742 (1993). Variance -- Mobile home park wants to expand past district limitations Prior to owner's purchase,, town had advised owner he could expand Citation: Harrington v. Town of Warner, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, No. 2003-687 (2005) NEW HAMPSHIRE (04/04/05) -- Wyman requested a variance from the town of Warner Zoning Board of Adjustment to expand his current mobile home park to include 25 additional sites. Wyman sought a variance 'for his expansion because the town was uncertain whether his proposal was permitted under the zoning ordinance. At the time, the park consisted of 46 acres with 33 homes and 54 camp- ground sites. Under the zoning code,, a park was held to a rain/mum of 10 acres and a maximum of 25 sites. Following two public meetings and a site walk, the zoning board of appeals voted to grant the variance but limited the expansion to 25 additional sites to be added at a rate of five lots per year. Harrington, a neighboring property owner, sued the town for granting the variances. The court ruled in favor of the town. Harrington appealed, arguing the zoning restrictions preceded Wyman's purchase of the .property, so any resulting hardship was self-created. DECISION:Affirmed. Wyman was entitled to a variance. Landowners were deemed to have constructive notice of the zoning restric- tions applicable to their property. Nonetheless, a self-created hardship did not always stop a landowner from obtaining a variance. Even if the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the zoning, restrictions, he or she could introduce evidence of good faith and still receive a variance. Here, the record showed Wyman-acted in good faith in following the zoning ordinance and in seeking a variance. Wyman was advised by a letter from the town selectmen prior to purchasing the property that the mobile home park could be expanded, subject to compliance with building ordinances and plan- ning board approval. In addition, Wyman raised the issue of the provision limiting mobile home parks to a maximum of 25 sites with the zoning board of appeals. The zoning board of appeals was uncertain whether the provision allowed 25 sites per 10 2005 Quinfan Publisrling Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 91