Cited by

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 721 (2006); City of Concord v. Tompkins, 124 N.H. 463, 468 (1984); see also Bosonetto, 163 N.H. at 742-43.

of Adjustment, 155 N.H. 307, 310 (2007) (“To the extent this ruling means the superior court reversed the ZBA’s decision because it found the decision lacked findings, the ruling constitutes error.”); Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006); cf. Smith v. Lillian V. Donahue Trust, 157 N.H. 502, 508 (2008) (noting that we assume that the trial court made all subsidiary findings necessary to support its decision).

focused on the effect of more than one use.” See Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006) (zoning board’s decision to grant variance “amounted to an implicit finding by the board” that applicable factors were met).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006) (ZBA’s decision to grant variance “amounted to an implicit finding by the board” that applicable factors were met).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 722 (2006) (noting that reliance must be reasonable).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 721 (2006); see also Aranosian Oil Co. v. City of Portsmouth, 136 N.H. 57, 61 (1992).

“The doctrine of municipal estoppel has been applied to municipalities to prevent unjust enrichment and to accord fairness to those who bargain with the agents of municipalities for the promises of the municipalities.” Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 721 (2006).

“[A] party may not assert equitable estoppel to avoid the application of a statute.” Appeal of Stanton, 147 N.H. 724, 732 (2002) (Dalianis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 722-23 (2006) (rejecting claim of municipal estoppel because reliance upon a representation contrary to statute was unreasonable).

Price v. Planning Board, 120 N.H. 481, 484 (1980) (non-abutters had standing where they participated in planning board proceedings and the proposed project was located across the street, constituted a significant change in use from undeveloped open space to subdivision with single-family dwellings and interfered with non-abutter’s use of right of way); Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 719-21 (2006) (non-abutters had standing where they owned a gas station within one thousand feet of pro

The doctrine of municipal estoppel is an equitable doctrine that has been applied to municipalities “to prevent unjust enrichment and to accord fairness to those who bargain with the agents of municipalities for the promises of the municipalities.” Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 721 (2006).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006) (holding that “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the [ZBA]”); Chester Rod and Gun Club, 152 N.H. at 583 (noting that “[w]hen reviewing a decision of a zoning board of adjustment, the superior court acts as an appellate body, not as a fact finder”).

unless it is not supported by the evidence or is legally erroneous.” Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 721 (2006) (quotation omitted).

In Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717 (2006), we decided the issue of standing upon facts similar to those in this case.

“Although 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.” Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724 (2006); see also Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625 (1977).

Thomas v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 717, 724, 903 A.2d 963 (2006); see also Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885 (1977).