New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 676:5 (2024)
Appeals to Board of Adjustment
✓ 2024 N.H. RSA (Justia copy): later sessions are not included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
676:5 Appeals to Board of Adjustment. –
I. Appeals to the board of adjustment concerning any matter within the board's powers as set forth in RSA 674:33 may be taken by the applicant, an abutter as defined by RSA 672:3, or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time, as provided by the rules of the board, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
II. For the purposes of this section:
(a) The "administrative officer" means any official or board who, in that municipality, has responsibility for issuing permits or certificates under the ordinance, or for enforcing the ordinance, and may include a building inspector, board of selectmen, or other official or board with such responsibility.
(b) A "decision of the administrative officer" includes any decision involving construction, interpretation or application of the terms of the ordinance. It does not include a discretionary decision to commence formal or informal enforcement proceedings, but does include any construction, interpretation or application of the terms of the ordinance which is implicated in such enforcement proceedings.
III. If, in the exercise of subdivision or site plan review, the planning board makes any decision or determination which is based upon the terms of the zoning ordinance, or upon any construction, interpretation, or application of the zoning ordinance, which would be appealable to the board of adjustment if it had been made by the administrative officer, then such decision may be appealed to the board of adjustment under this section; provided, however, that if the zoning ordinance contains an innovative land use control adopted pursuant to RSA 674:21 which delegates administration, including the granting of conditional or special use permits, to the planning board, then the planning board's decision made pursuant to that delegation cannot be appealed to the board of adjustment, but may be appealed to the superior court as provided by RSA 677:15.
IV. The board of adjustment may impose reasonable fees to cover its administrative expenses and costs of special investigative studies, review of documents, and other matters which may be required by particular appeals or applications.
V. (a) A board of adjustment reviewing a land use application may require the applicant to reimburse the board for expenses reasonably incurred by obtaining third party review and consultation during the review process, provided that the review and consultation does not substantially replicate a review and consultation obtained by the planning board.
(b) A board of adjustment retaining services under subparagraph (a) shall require detailed invoices with reasonable task descriptions for services rendered. Upon request of the applicant, the board of adjustment shall promptly provide a reasonably detailed accounting of expenses, or corresponding escrow deductions, with copies of supporting documentation.
I. Appeals to the board of adjustment concerning any matter within the board's powers as set forth in RSA 674:33 may be taken by the applicant, an abutter as defined by RSA 672:3, or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time, as provided by the rules of the board, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
II. For the purposes of this section:
(a) The "administrative officer" means any official or board who, in that municipality, has responsibility for issuing permits or certificates under the ordinance, or for enforcing the ordinance, and may include a building inspector, board of selectmen, or other official or board with such responsibility.
(b) A "decision of the administrative officer" includes any decision involving construction, interpretation or application of the terms of the ordinance. It does not include a discretionary decision to commence formal or informal enforcement proceedings, but does include any construction, interpretation or application of the terms of the ordinance which is implicated in such enforcement proceedings.
III. If, in the exercise of subdivision or site plan review, the planning board makes any decision or determination which is based upon the terms of the zoning ordinance, or upon any construction, interpretation, or application of the zoning ordinance, which would be appealable to the board of adjustment if it had been made by the administrative officer, then such decision may be appealed to the board of adjustment under this section; provided, however, that if the zoning ordinance contains an innovative land use control adopted pursuant to RSA 674:21 which delegates administration, including the granting of conditional or special use permits, to the planning board, then the planning board's decision made pursuant to that delegation cannot be appealed to the board of adjustment, but may be appealed to the superior court as provided by RSA 677:15.
IV. The board of adjustment may impose reasonable fees to cover its administrative expenses and costs of special investigative studies, review of documents, and other matters which may be required by particular appeals or applications.
V. (a) A board of adjustment reviewing a land use application may require the applicant to reimburse the board for expenses reasonably incurred by obtaining third party review and consultation during the review process, provided that the review and consultation does not substantially replicate a review and consultation obtained by the planning board.
(b) A board of adjustment retaining services under subparagraph (a) shall require detailed invoices with reasonable task descriptions for services rendered. Upon request of the applicant, the board of adjustment shall promptly provide a reasonably detailed accounting of expenses, or corresponding escrow deductions, with copies of supporting documentation.
Source. 1983, 447:1. 1987, 256:5. 1989, 69:1. 1991, 231:13. 1995, 243:1. 2010, 303:1, eff. Sept. 11, 2010. 2024, 130:1, eff. Sept. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 8 A.3d 159 (N.H. 2010).
Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 8 A.3d 159 (N.H. 2010). “On September 5, they filed a verified petition in superior court pursuant to RSA 677:15 to review the planning board’s decision, and on September 6, they filed a “Petition to Appeal Planning Board Decision of Zoning Issue Under RSA 676:5 (III)” with the ZBA. We previously…”
Greene v. Town of Deering, 868 A.2d 986 (N.H. 2005). “The ZBA determined that it had jurisdiction pursuant to RSA 676:5 (1996). Greene contends that the appeals should instead have been governed by RSA 236:121 (1993), RSA 236:123 (1993), or RSA 236:129 (1993).”
Heartz v. City of Concord, 808 A.2d 76 (N.H. 2002). “The court held that the notice and comment issues should have first been brought to the ZBA under RSA 676:5 (1996) because these issues concerned an interpretation of a zoning ordinance and not a “decision of the planning board concerning a plat or subdivision” for which direct…”
Mountain Valley Mall Assocs. v. Mun. of Conway, 745 A.2d 481 (N.H. 2000). “This case presents a complex procedural and factual history involving multiple hearings before the planning board and concurrent appeals from the planning board’s decision to both the ZBA, see *645 RSA 676:5, III (1996), and the superior court, see RSA 677:15 (1996).”
Route 12 Books & Video v. Town of Troy, 825 A.2d 493 (N.H. 2003). “This deadline does not apply to planning board decisions appealable to the board of adjustment pursuant to RSA 676:5, III. Nee id RSA 676:5,1 and III (1996 & Supp.”
Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 8 A.3d 89 (N.H. 2010). “2009), while the instant case was appealed under RSA 676:5, III (2008) and RSA 677:4 (Supp.”
Ouellette v. Town of Kingston, 956 A.2d 286 (N.H. 2008). “” Konover appealed the HDC’s decision to the ZBA pursuant to RSA 676:5 (1996). The ZBA held a public hearing on the application, at which new evidence was presented.”
Hoffman v. Town of Gilford, 786 A.2d 93 (N.H. 2001). “Three days later, the ZBA sent Hoffman a letter stating that under RSA 676:5, III (1996) it could hear only zoning issues and could not hear nonzoning or planning issues.”
Accurate Transp., Inc. & a. v. Town of Derry, 168 N.H. 108 (2015). “” Relying primarily upon RSA 676:5 (Supp. 2014) and our decision in Atwater v.”
Hooksett Conservation Comm'n v. Hooksett Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 816 A.2d 948 (N.H. 2003). “The commission appealed the formal zoning interpretation to the ZBA under RSA 676:5 (1996). The ZBA denied the commission’s appeal.”
State v. Hynes, 978 A.2d 264 (N.H. 2009). “2d 1158 (2006) (holding, in the context of a zoning board appeal pursuant to RSA 676:5, I, that to be a "person aggrieved" a petitioner must demonstrate "some direct definite interest in the outcome of the proceedings," and, further, that we will not extend standing to "all…”
Goldstein v. Town of Bedford, 910 A.2d 1158 (N.H. 2006). “See RSA 676:5,1 (1996). The plaintiff had earlier filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the superior court requesting that it: (1) order the town to investigate and enforce its zoning ordinance, cancel Evans’ existing permits, and enjoin both the issuance of any further…”
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 676:5(III): 1 case
22 Lenox Avenue, LLC v. Town of Derry, No. 2014-0193 (N.H. May 8, 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.