Court Opinion

ID: 9693891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:07:35.441139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:51.835526
License: Public Domain

On motion eor rehearing. After the foregoing opinion was filed the plaintiff moved for a rehearing with respect to the “rulings set forth in the last two paragraphs of the opinion.”
Duncan, J.
The plaintiff urges that the opinion should be modified to provide for further hearing in the Superior Court to determine “what things the plaintiff can do and what he cannot do, within the subordinate limits of ‘accessory use.’ ” The authority of the Superior Court with respect to zoning appeals is fixed by the statute and limited to a judgment which either dismisses an appeal or vacates the order of the board in whole or in part with remand to the board in the Court’s discretion. RSA 31:83. Thus the authority of the Trial Court does not extend to modification of the order of the board. Before the zoning board the plaintiff sought a ruling “as to what parts of the application are considered proper and what parts are considered improper.” While the board is authorized on appeal to “make such order, or decision, as ought to be made” (RSA 31:72 IV) its duty did not extend to the rendition of an advisory opinion and was satisfied by its finding that the requested use was not an accessory use within the ordinance.
If the plaintiff should determine to seek a permit for an accessory use or uses which would differ sufficiently in nature and *38degree from the uses sought in these proceedings, so as to be truly subordinate and incidental to residential use, his application for such a permit would be entitled to consideration. Fiorilla v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 275. See Thompson v. Smith, 119 Vt. 488, 508; anno. 168 A. L. R. 13, 127.
April 23, 1959.

Motion denied.