DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Peabody v. Town of Windham, 703 A.2d 886.

13 citing documents.

  • R. Kenneth Connolly & a. v. Town of Madison N.H. 2021
    “[T]he ultimate purpose of zoning regulations is to reduce nonconforming uses” and structures “to conformity as quickly as possible.” Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 493 (1997).
  • Accurate Transport, Inc. & a. v. Town of Derry 168 N.H. 108 N.H. 2015
    Ouellette v. Town of Kingston, 157 N.H. 604, 610 (2008) (concluding that “the ZBA may hear appeals de novo, based upon the broad powers granted to it by statute”); see also Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997) (“The [ZBA] has broad authority on subjects within its jurisdiction.”).
  • Lakeside Lodge, Inc. v. Town of New London 960 A.2d 1268 N.H. 2008
    Although we have expressly permitted a ZBA to define and constrain *172 nonconforming uses, see Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997); Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 464 (1958), such authority derives from, and is coextensive with, the authority to enact the underlying ordinance because nonconforming use is the byproduct of regulation.
  • Ouellette v. Town of Kingston 956 A.2d 286 N.H. 2008
    RSA 674:33; see also Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997) (“The board has broad authority on subjects within its jurisdiction.”).
  • Lone Pine Hunters' Club, Inc. v. Town of Hollis 826 A.2d 582 N.H. 2003
    “For its part, the trial court, in reviewing *670 the decision of a zoning board of adjustment, is limited to a determination ofiwhether, on the balance of the probabilities, the decision was unlawful or unreasonable.” Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997) (quotation omitted); see RSA 677:6 (1996).
  • Robinson v. Town of Hudson 821 A.2d 959 N.H. 2003
    Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997).
  • Morgenstern v. Town of Rye 794 A.2d 782 N.H. 2002
    Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997).
  • Marchand v. Town of Hudson 788 A.2d 250 N.H. 2001
    Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997).
  • Old Street Barn, LLC v. Town of Peterborough 787 A.2d 171 N.H. 2001
    Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997).
  • Kaplan v. Booth Creek Ski Group, Inc. 785 A.2d 412 N.H. 2001
    Although we “will not look beyond the language of a statute to determine legislative intent if the *205 statute’s language is clear and unambiguous,” State v. Rothe, 142 N.H. 488, 485 (1997), “[w]here the statutory language is ambiguous or where more than one reasonable interpretation exists, we review legislative history to aid in our analysis.” K & J Assoc.
  • Town of Windham v. Lawrence Savings Bank 776 A.2d 730 N.H. 2001
    In a land use case, we will “uphold the decision of the superior court unless [it] is not supported by the evidence or is legally erroneous.” Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997) (brackets omitted).
  • North Country Environmental Services, Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem 772 A.2d 330 N.H. 2001
    Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997) (factual findings of zoning board are prima facie lawful and reasonable).
  • Town of Seabrook v. Vachon Management 745 A.2d 1155 N.H. 2000
    “Accordingly, the party asserting that a proposed use is not new or impermissible bears the burden of proof.” Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 493, 703 A.2d 886, 889 (1997).