Harborside Associates, L.P. v. Parade Residence Hotel, LLC
162 N.H. 508
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Parade requests sign variances for parapet and marquee signs on its hotel site abutting Harborside’s Sheraton hotel site in Portsmouth.
- Sign District 3 prohibits parapet signs; marquee signs are allowed up to 20 square feet each.
- Parade seeks two parapet signs (not permitted) and two marquee signs (~35 sq ft each, exceeding cap).
- ZBA grants parapet variance but later parties dispute; ZBA also grants marquee variance.
- Trial court reverses parapet variance but upholds marquee variance; remands for hardship criteria consideration.
- Appellate review focuses on RSA 674:33, 1(b) criteria (public interest, spirit of ordinance, substantial justice, property values, and hardship).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parapet signs: whether ZBA’s public-interest/spirit-of-ordinance findings were supported | Parade argues the parapet variance serves public interest and aligns with ordinance goals | ZBA found no conflict with public interest or spirit of ordinance | Yes; findings supported; trial court erred |
| Parapet signs: whether substantial justice supports the parapet variance | Parade shows no public gain outweighing hardship | ZBA correctly weighed public benefit and hardship | Yes; substantial justice supported; trial court erred |
| Parapet signs: whether unnecessary hardship was shown (first/second definitions) | Parade contends hardship exists due to unique property conditions | ZBA applied correct test; signs reasonable given conditions | Remand to consider first-definition hardship criteria; not decided on merits here |
| Marquee signs: whether unnecessary hardship established for marquee variance (first definition) | Parade argues large marquee signs are a reasonable use given property conditions | Building size creates unique conditions supporting variance | Yes; first-definition hardship satisfied; building size supported special conditions |
| Marquee signs: whether other RSA 674:33 criteria (public interest, spirit, substantial justice, property values) were met | Smaller conforming signs could have achieved goals; variance unnecessary | Evidence supports non-diminishment of values and public-interest alignment | Affirmed on criteria; marquee variance upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lone Pine Hunters’ Club v. Town of Hollis, 149 N.H. 668 (N.H. 2003) (variances require alignment with public interest and neighborhood impact)
- Malachy Glen Assocs. v. Town of Chichester, 155 N.H. 102 (N.H. 2007) (substantial justice analysis in variance decisions)
- Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington, 145 N.H. 727 (N.H. 2001) (defines hardship test used for variance applications)
- Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85 (N.H. 2004) (abrogated by Simplex-related reform for area variances)
- Governor’s Island Club v. Town of Gilford, 124 N.H. 126 (N.H. 1983) (pre-Simplex hardship framework guidance)
- Farrar v. City of Keene, 158 N.H. 684 (N.H. 2009) (guidance on public-interest/spirit-of-ordinance analysis)
- Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74 (N.H. 2005) (substantial justice considerations in variances)
- Daniels v. Town of Londonderry, 157 N.H. 519 (N.H. 2008) (reasonableness of use under variance standards)
- 1808 Corp. v. Town of New Ipswich, 161 N.H. 772 (N.H. 2011) (standard of review for zoning board decisions)
- Naser v. Town of Deering ZBA, 157 N.H. 322 (N.H. 2008) (remand when hardship criteria not yet considered)
- Bacon v. Town of Enfield, 150 N.H. 468 (N.H. 2004) (concurrence cited re: ‘special conditions’ for hardship)