The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled against a decision by the Housing Appeals Board (HAB) that allowed a couple to expand their lakefront cottage in Hampstead. The court's decision, issued on July 15, 2026, affects property owners and zoning regulations in the area. The ruling emphasizes the importance of meeting specific criteria when seeking zoning exceptions, particularly regarding property value impacts.
The case, known as the Appeal of Murray (docket number 2025-0019), arose from a dispute involving Christine Murray, an abutter to the property owned by Beth and Scott Spicer. The Spicers sought a special exception from the Town of Hampstead Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to build a second-floor addition to their cottage. Murray argued that the expansion would obstruct her view and diminish her property’s value.
The ZBA granted the special exception without providing detailed findings to support its decision, which led to Murray filing for a rehearing. The ZBA denied her request, prompting Murray to appeal to the HAB. The HAB upheld the ZBA's decision, stating that it was not unreasonable or unlawful. This prompted Murray to take her case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the ZBA had failed to meet legal requirements when it granted the special exception. The court noted that the ZBA did not provide specific written findings of fact, as required by New Hampshire law. The court stated, "The applicants failed to meet their burden to establish a right to a special exception, and the ZBA had no record basis for its implicit conclusion that the addition would not adversely affect surrounding property values." This ruling highlights the necessity for zoning boards to thoroughly evaluate applications and provide clear justifications for their decisions.
The court's opinion was delivered by Justice Gould, with Chief Justice MacDonald and Justices Donovan and Countway concurring. The ruling reverses the HAB's decision and sends the case back to the HAB with instructions to reverse the ZBA's decision.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both property owners and zoning boards in New Hampshire. It reinforces the requirement that applicants for special exceptions must provide sufficient evidence that their proposed changes will not negatively affect surrounding property values. This case sets a precedent that zoning boards must adhere to strict standards when evaluating requests for special exceptions, ensuring that community concerns are adequately addressed.
This decision could lead to increased scrutiny of future applications for zoning exceptions, particularly in residential areas where property values and views are at stake. Homeowners may feel more empowered to challenge zoning decisions that they believe could adversely affect their properties. The ruling also serves as a reminder to zoning boards of the importance of clear documentation and justification for their decisions.
Looking ahead, the Spicers may have limited options for appealing the Supreme Court's decision. The ruling appears to be final, and it is unclear if they will pursue any further legal action. There are currently no related cases pending that could directly impact this ruling.