Cited by

ance, provided the variance would not “be contrary to the public interest, if, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.” We have added the requirement that the variance must not result in diminution of surrounding property values.

the applicant; (2) that no diminution in value of surrounding properties would occur; (3) that the proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance; (4) that granting the variance would benefit the public interest; and (5) that granting the variance would do substantial justice.” Rowe v. Town of North Hampton, 131 N.H. 424, 427, 553 A.2d 1331, 1333 (1989); Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952).

Biggs v. Town of Sandwich, 124 N.H. 421, 427, 470 A.2d 928, 932 (1984); Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952).

Gelinas v. City of Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952).

In order to obtain a variance, an applicant must satisfy five conditions, including the requirement that the “denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it.” Id., 451 A.2d at 1317 (ultimately quoting Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952)).

would be suffered; 2) granting the permit would be of benefit to the public interest; 3) denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it; 4) granting the permit would do substantial justice; 5) the use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.” *102 Id.; Carbonneau v. Town of Exeter, 119 N.H. 259, 262, 401 A.2d 675, 677 (1979); Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952); see RSA 31:72 III.

In Ouimette v. City of Somersworth supra, we stated that “[vjariances are included in a zoning ordinance to prevent the ordinance from becoming confiscatory or unduly oppressive as applied to individual properties uniquely situated,” but held that regardless of whether the variance requested is one of use or area, the five requisite standards set forth in Gelinas v. City of Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 85 A.2d 896 (1952), are the proper ones to be employed in determining whether the variance should

Gelinas v. City of Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952).

The leading case of Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 85 A.2d 896 (1952), details the standard for granting a variance: (1) no diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered; (2) granting the permit would be of benefit to the public interest; (3) denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it; (4) by granting the perm

Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952); see Broderick v. Hunt, 77 N.H. 139, 142-43, 89 A. 302, 304-05 (1913); Foote v. State Personnel Commission, 116 N.H. 145, 148, 355 A.2d 412, 414 (1976).

The zoning board in this case considered the petition for variance in accordance with the requirement set forth in Celinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952).

We agree with the plaintiffs to the extent that a board of adjustment does *494 have authority to grant a variance from the permitted uses within a district as long as the requested use meets the conditions set forth in Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 250, 85 A.2d 896, 898 (1952), namely, it must bis found that (1) no diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered; (2) granting the permit would be of benefit to the public interest; (3) denial of the permit would result in un

The trial court viewed the area with counsel and could ascertain the nature of the use being made.

Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 85 A.2d 896 (1952); Hazen v. Corporation, 89 N.H. 522, 2 A.2d 449 (1938).

In granting the variance as to part of the property, the board found that all five requirements for a variance had been met.

In this situation, the view, which may have furnished vital portions of the evidence, assumes added significance.