[DOWNLOAD] "Edgewood Civic Club v. Raymond A." by Supreme Court of New Hampshire * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Edgewood Civic Club v. Raymond A.
• Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Release Date : January 05, 1948
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 59 KB

Description

Zoning regulations are based on certain fundamental propositions. ""Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan"" (R. L., c. 51, s. 52) so that zoning is by districts ""and not by individual pieces of property"" ( Kimball v. Blanchard, 90 N.H. 298, 299 ; R. L., c. 51, s. 51) with a view to the future needs as well as the present conditions of the city. Kimball v. Blanchard, supra, 300. Nonconforming uses existing when the regulations go into effect are allowed to continue but not to multiply when they are harmful or improper. Bassett, Zoning (1940 ed.) 105. Since zoning is not static provision is made for amendments and changes (R. L., c. 51, s. 54) to be granted and ""exercised reasonably"" (Brady v. Keene , 90 N.H. 99, 101) when in the public interest and denied when it effects a special privilege solely. Scott v. Davis, 94 N.H. 35, 38. The amendment to the Keene zoning ordinance changing defendants property from a single residence district to a business district has been found by the Master to be ""not a district in any real sense of the term, but is, on the contrary, an individual piece of property arbitrarily designated as a zone."" This coupled with the finding that there was no ""public need for the ordinance of April 17, 1947"" makes out a case of spot zoning if there was evidence to support it. The record does not indicate that there was any public necessity or convenience involved in the allowance of a novelty store or a business district at defendants' premises nor does it show that it would enhance the development of the community except as it was an economic benefit to the defendants alone. It was not a case where a small business area was a convenience or necessity in or near a large residential area. The mere fact that the amendment zoned a small area at the request of a single owner does not of itself make the result spot zoning. ""The invalidity of 'spot zoning' depends upon more than the size of the 'spot."" Marblehead v. Rosenthal, 316 Mass. 124, 126. The zone may be small and of greater benefit to those seeking it than to others if there is a public need for it or a compelling reason for it. Thus an area may be zoned specially to meet a special safety or health problem. Nappi v. La Guardia, 55 N. Y. S. (2d) 80, affirmed in 295 N. Y. 652. In the present case the court could find the element of public need was absent resulting in a case of spot zoning.

Download Ebook "Edgewood Civic Club v. Raymond A." PDF ePub Kindle