Cited by

Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625 (1977) (stating that “[t]he board’s decision amounted to an implicit finding that the several requisites for a variance had been met,” and holding that “[a]lthough disclosure of specific findings of fact by a board of adjustment may often facilitate judicial review, the absence of findings, at least where there i

The superior court concluded that the board implicitly found, as a factual matter, that the tennis court continued to exist as a non-conforming structure within the meaning of Section VIII of the ordinance, see Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625 (1977) (affirming zoning board’s implicit findings), and that the board’s implicit finding was not unreasonable, see Merriam Farm, 168 N.H. at 199 (court will not set aside board’s findings unless erroneous or unreasonable).

“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).

Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625 (1977).

v. N.H. Wetlands Bd., 133 N.H. 98, 107, 574 A.2d 1368, 1373 (1990) (interpreting RSA 677:10); see also Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977) (interpreting predecessors of RSA 677:10 and:13).

Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Board, 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977); see Rowe v. Town of North Hampton, 131 N.H. at 428, 553 A.2d at 1333.

Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977).

Although the board did not make specific findings, which it had no obligation to do since none were requested, Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 887 (1977), the record reveals that the plaintiff presented no evidence on the issue of pedestrian safety, as required by § 170-52, C.(3)(b) of the zoning ordinance.

Thus “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board,” Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977), unless it “finds by the balance of the probabilities, on the evidence before it, that the decision was unlawful or unreasonable,” Richardson v. Town of Salisbury, 123 N.H. 93, 96, 455 A.2d 1059, 1061 (1983); see also U-Haul Co. of N.H. & Vt., Inc. v. City of Concord, 122 N.H. at 9

Pappas v. City of Manchester, 117 N.H. 622, 624-25, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977).

Barrington East Cluster I Unit Owners Association v. Town of Barrington, 121 N.H. 627, 630, 433 A.2d 1266, 1268 (1981); Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977).

Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 887 (1977).

(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 permit substantial justice will be done; (5) the use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.” *817 Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 887 (1977).

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 permit substantial justice will be done; (5) the use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.” See also Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 887 (1977).

See, e.g., Win-Tasch Corporation v. Town of Merrimack, 120 N.H. 6, 411 A.2d 144 (1980); Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 376 A.2d 885 (1977).

RSA 31:82; 31:85; Win-Tasch Corp. v. Town of Merrimack, 120 N.H. 6, 411 A.2d 144 (1980); Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 886 (1977); Conery v. Nashua, 103 N.H. 16, 21, 164 A.2d 247, 250 (1960).

Pappas v. City of Manchester, 117 N.H. 622, 376 A.2d 885 (1977).

These requisites, recently reiterated in Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd., 117 N.H. 622, 625, 376 A.2d 885, 887 (1977), are: (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 unnecssary hardship to the owner seeking it; (4) by granting the permit substantial justice will be