Opinion ID: 2335800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Quid Pro Quo Transaction

Text: The plaintiff lastly argues that the trial court erred in affirming the ZBA's finding that there was insufficient evidence for it to determine that the previous owners' grant of the conservation easement to the town was a quid pro quo transaction for Planning Board approval of the original condominium plan. He argues that the ZBA relied upon its finding of insufficient evidence in denying his variance request and that a finding on this point in his favor would support granting him a variance. After considering the evidence before it, the ZBA found that [t]he evidence presented on this issue was insufficient for the ZBA to find either way. The trial court found that this decision was reasonable and lawful and supported by the certified record. Such a finding by the trial court is equivalent to a ruling that the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof on this issue. Kalil, 155 N.H. at 309, 922 A.2d 672. Based upon the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court's decision was unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.