Opinion ID: 2084878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Interest & Spirit of the Ordinance

Text: The requirement that the variance not be contrary to the public interest is related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Malachy Glen Assocs., 155 N.H. at 105, 920 A.2d 1192 (quotation omitted). A variance is contrary to the public interest or injurious to the public rights of others if it unduly, and in a marked degree conflict[s] with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives. Chester Rod & Gun Club, 152 N.H. at 581, 883 A.2d 1034 (quotation and citation omitted). Because the fundamental premise of zoning laws is the segregation of land according to use, [o]ne way to ascertain whether granting the variance would violate basic zoning objectives is to examine whether it would alter the essential character of the locality. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Another approach ... is to examine whether granting the variance would threaten the public health, safety or welfare. Id. The Keene Zoning Ordinance states that the office district serves to provide for noncommercial offices within walking distance to the downtown. The uses are intended to be low intensity such as professional offices. This zone is intended also to serve as a buffer between the intense uses such as those in the central business, central business limited, commerce zones, and residential areas. The record shows that the ZBA found that the mixed office and residential use had fairly low intensity. The ZBA considered the purpose of the office district as a low intensity buffer zone, and stated that the apartments may limit the amount of traffic whereas if the whole building were office space, there would be more traffic. The record further reveals that the Farrars were concerned that the property would be used for commercial purposes. Jeananne Farrar testified at the ZBA hearing that she thinks the owner is attempting to create a commercial use of the property that is in reality suppose[d] to serve as a buffer between the intense commercial use of downtown and the low residential use.... The ZBA considered the Farrars' concern over commercial use and determined that Hill was requesting mixed office and residential use, and that any argument that the office use is actually commercial is an issue for code enforcement. Thus, the superior court did not err in finding that the ZBA could reasonably conclude that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest or unduly, in a marked degree, conflict with the ordinance.