Cited by

In our first post-Fisher case addressing successive reapplication, we noted that throughout the litigation in that case, the town had “taken the position that it denied the plaintiff’s request for a variance because of concerns about the particular proposed structure’s impact on the wetlands.” Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 564–65 (2002).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 565 (2002).

‘We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and will affirm the trial court’s legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.” Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002) (citations omitted).

This case is therefore factually more analogous to Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558 (2002), in which we noted that the minutes of prior ZBA hearings “d[id] not suggest that the ZBA would never grant a variance to construct a house on the plaintiffs lot.

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 566 (2002) (holding second petition constituted a new proposal even though it was for the same single family home because it addressed the concern over the impact on wetlands).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 562 (2002).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 562, 794 A.2d 782 (2002).

Dec.laratory Judgment Action Under RSA 491:22 PPG's final argument is that the trial court should have allowed its declaratory judgment action, even if it were untimely because PPG filed it outside of the thirty-day appeal period provided in RSA 677:15, I. See Blue Jay Realty Trust v. City of Franklin, 132 N.H. 502, 567 A.2d 188 (1989); Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561, 794 A.2d 782 (2002).

Blue Jay Realty Trust v. City of Franklin, 132 N.H. 502 (1989); Morgenstem v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002).

USA Springs questions whether Fisher — a zoning case — should even apply to an RSA chapter 485-C case, and argues that even if it were applicable, it is distinguishable because this case is more like Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558 (2002).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 565 (2002).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 565 (2002).

‘We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence, and will affirm the trial court’s legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.” Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002) (citations omitted).

“We will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence, and will affirm the trial court’s legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.” Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002) (citation omitted).

Analysis A. Standard of Review On appeal, “[w]e will affirm the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence, and will affirm the trial court’s legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law.” Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002) (citation omitted).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002).

Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 561 (2002).