Opinion ID: 2371662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The ZBA Ruling

Text: The ZBA ruling at issue relates to Lot A-30, a 12.8-acre parcel located north of the Blagbrough property and bounded on the south by Old Peterborough Road. On September 29, 2003, the Town's selectmen, after review and comment by the planning board and town counsel, voted to authorize a building permit pursuant to RSA 674:41, I(c) (Supp.2002) (amended 2004) for A & T to engage in construction on Lot A-30. Blagbrough appealed the selectmen's decision to the ZBA, which agreed with the selectmen. Blagbrough then appealed the ZBA's decision to the superior court, which affirmed the ZBA. Here, Blagbrough argues that the trial court erred by: (1) making certain pretrial rulings relating to a protective order sought by the Town; (2) concluding that Old Peterborough Road is a public highway; (3) ruling that Lot A-30 was grandfathered within the meaning of the zoning ordinance; and (4) misinterpreting RSA 674:41, I(c). We consider each argument in turn. Our review of zoning board decisions is limited. Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 77, 872 A.2d 990 (2005). We will uphold the trial court's decision unless the evidence does not support it or it is legally erroneous. Chester Rod & Gun Club v. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. 577, 580, 883 A.2d 1034 (2005). For its part, the trial court must treat all factual findings of the ZBA as prima facie lawful and reasonable. RSA 677:6 (1996). It may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based upon the evidence before it, that the ZBA's decision was unreasonable. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. at 580, 883 A.2d 1034.
We begin by placing Blagbrough's challenge to the trial court's pretrial rulings in context. On June 2, 2004, Blagbrough moved to consolidate the petition to quiet title and the ZBA appeal, arguing, among other things, that the issues and evidence presented [in both cases] . . . are likely to be duplicative. . . . On July 8, 2004, the Trial Court ( Hicks, J.) granted the motion to consolidate. Later, on or about September 15, 2004, Blagbrough propounded interrogatories to the Town, seeking discoverable information related to the ZBA appeal. In response, the Town moved for a protective order, arguing that the superior court should rule on issues connected to the ZBA appeal based only upon information contained in the certified record of the ZBA proceedings, and therefore further discovery on the ZBA matter was not necessary. The Trial Court ( Lynn, C.J.) granted the Town's motion. At trial, the court permitted counsel for the Town to cross-examine witnesses and to introduce or rely upon evidence not found in the certified record of the ZBA proceedings. On appeal, Blagbrough argues that once the Trial Court disallowed any discovery on the plaintiff's RSA 677:4 appeal, it was bound to prohibit the Town from participating substantively in the evidentiary aspects of the December 21 and 22, 2004 hearing in this matter. The trial court has broad discretion in managing and supervising pretrial discovery and in ruling on the conduct of a trial. Murray v. Developmental Servs. of Sullivan County, 149 N.H. 264, 268, 818 A.2d 302 (2003). We review a trial court's rulings on the management of discovery and the scope of cross-examination under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Barnes, 150 N.H. 715, 719, 849 A.2d 152 (2004) (discovery); State v. Wellington, 150 N.H. 782, 788, 846 A.2d 1171 (2004) (cross-examination). To establish that the trial court erred under this standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of its case. See id. Especially since it was Blagbrough that sought to consolidate these two cases, we do not find that the trial court's rulings were untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of Blagbrough's case. It is within the trial court's discretion to allow further evidence in a ZBA appeal. Peter Christian's v. Town of Hanover, 132 N.H. 677, 683, 569 A.2d 758 (1990). In granting the Town's motion for a protective order, the trial court apparently concluded that it understood the materials upon which the ZBA relied and that further evidence would not aid in its decision or be necessary to complete the record; therefore, additional discovery on issues pertaining to the ZBA appeal would not be necessary. See Estabrooks v. Town of Jefferson, 134 N.H. 367, 369, 592 A.2d 1154 (1991) (explaining the admission of additional evidence by the superior court in a ZBA appeal). Later, at trial, when Blagbrough elicited testimony from witnesses concerning issues germane to the ZBA appeal, the Town was entitled to cross-examine those witnesses through questioning and the use of exhibits. Appeal of Sutton, 141 N.H. 348, 351, 684 A.2d 1346 (1996) (In any proceeding, cross-examination, almost by definition, is a review of direct examination in order to determine the veracity, accuracy and depth of knowledge of the witness. (quotation omitted)). To hold otherwise would result in one litigant being able to embark on a wide-ranging evidentiary inquiry, while the other (who opposed consolidation presumably to avoid precisely the type of predicament at issue here) is forced to stand by silently. Accordingly, we reject Blagbrough's first assignment of error on the ZBA appeal.
Blagbrough's second argument is that the trial court erred in concluding that Old Peterborough Road is a public highway. For the reasons articulated earlier in this opinion, we reject this argument.
Lot A-30 is located in an area of the Town zoned as a watershed district. Section 14.3.2 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance requires each lot in the Watershed District to have a minimum of 300 feet of frontage on a class V or better road. It is undisputed that Lot A-30 does not have 300 feet of frontage. In affirming the selectmen's decision to grant the building permit, the ZBA concluded, and the trial court agreed, that section 17.2 of the ordinance excused A & T from having to comply with section 14.3.2. Blagbrough contends that both the ZBA and the trial court misinterpreted section 17.2 and that therefore, absent a variance, A & T could not obtain a building permit on a lot that did not satisfy the ordinance's frontage requirements. The interpretation of a zoning ordinance is a question of law, which we review de novo. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. at 79, 872 A.2d 990. Because the traditional rules of statutory construction generally govern our review, we construe the words and phrases of an ordinance according to the common and approved usage of the language. Id. When the language of an ordinance is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the ordinance itself for further indications of legislative intent. Id. Moreover, we will not guess what the drafters of the ordinance might have intended, or add words that they did not see fit to include. Id. Section 17.2 of the ordinance provides in pertinent part: [A] lot of record at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance [which] has less area and/or frontage than herein required in the District in which it is located . . . may be used for a single family dwelling if permitted in that district subject to New Hampshire water supply and pollution control division approval and subject to all district regulations applicable to lots within the district wherein the lot is located with the exception of lot size and/or frontage. In order for section 17.2 to apply, the subject lot must be a lot of record at the time of the effective date of the ordinance. Section 3.1.19 of the ordinance defines a lot of record as [l]and designated as a separate and distinct parcel in a legally-recorded deed filed in the record of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. While acknowledging that Lot A-30 and Lot A-21 had been in common ownership under the Dimelings, the trial court ruled that Lot A-30 was a lot of record within the meaning of section 17.2 because Lot A-30 was located on the opposite side of Old Peterborough Road from Lot A-21 and had been described separately from Lot A-21 in the deeds in the Dimeling chain. Blagbrough contends that Lot A-30 does not satisfy the definition of lot of record both because there was no separate deed for Lot A-30 at the time of the Dimelings' ownership and because a requirement that the lot be buildable should be read into the definition of lot of record. Blagbrough also argues that the Ordinance should not be interpreted to allow development in the Watershed District with no frontage whatsoever and the Trial Court erred when it allowed such interpretation. We find these arguments unavailing. First, the plain language of section 3.1.19 does not require a lot of record to be described in a separate deed. Rather, it simply requires that within any deed conveying the lot, the lot must be described separately. The trial court found that such a separate description was contained in the deeds in the Dimeling chain, and Blagbrough has pointed to no persuasive evidence which would undermine this finding. Second, the word buildable does not appear anywhere in the definition of lot of record. We will not guess what the drafters of the ordinance might have intended, or add words that they did not see fit to include. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. at 79, 872 A.2d 990. Third, we decline Blagbrough's invitation to hold that a lot with no frontage somehow materially differs from a lot with little frontage for purposes of section 17.2. The plain language of the ordinance applies anytime a lot has less frontage. Lot A-30 has less frontage than is required (it has none). Accordingly, section 17.2 applies and we reject Blagbrough's arguments concerning the trial court's interpretation of the ordinance. If the Town wishes to change the words or terms of its ordinance, it is of course free to do so.
Blagbrough's final assignment of error pertaining to the ZBA appeal is that both the ZBA and the trial court misinterpreted RSA 674:41, I(c). Blagbrough contends that RSA 674:41, I(c) does not authorize selectmen to issue building permits to individual landowners. RSA 674:41, I(c) provides, in pertinent part: [N]o building shall be erected on any lot within any part of the municipality nor shall a building permit be issued for the erection of a building unless the street giving access to the lot upon which such building is proposed to be placed: . . . (c) Is a class VI highway, provided that: (1) The local governing body after review and comment by the planning board has voted to authorize the issuance of building permits for the erection of buildings on said class VI highway or a portion thereof; and (2) The municipality neither assumes responsibility for maintenance of said class VI highway nor liability for any damages resulting from the use thereof; and (3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall produce evidence that notice of the limits of municipal responsibility and liability has been recorded in the county registry of deeds. . . . In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the legislature's intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. ___, ___, 911 A.2d 1 (2006). When examining the language of a statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used. Id. We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include. Id. We agree with the trial court's reasoning that there is no merit in Blagbrough's suggestion that RSA 674:41, I(c) does not permit the local governing body to grant building permits on an individual, case by case basis, for properties that fall within the purview of the statute. The mere fact that the statute uses the plural terms permits and buildings does not compel the conclusion that the selectmen must grant such approval en gross, i.e., either on a road-wide or municipality-wide basis. On the contrary, the statute specifically indicates that approvals can be granted for said class VI highway or a portion thereof. (Emphasis added.) These terms support the view that the statute contemplates a case by case determination by the selectmen as to whether to grant approval for building on a particular lot or lots. Blagbrough disputes the trial court's reasoning by citing RSA 674:41, II, which provides: Whenever the enforcement of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and when the circumstances of the case do not require the building, structure or part thereof to be related to existing or proposed streets, the applicant for such permit may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issuance of permits to the zoning board of adjustment in any municipality which has adopted zoning regulations. . . . Blagbrough argues that RSA 674:41, II requires individual lot owners to seek building permits from the local zoning board of adjustment. We do not construe statutes in isolation; instead, we attempt to do so in harmony with the overall statutory scheme. Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 405, 881 A.2d 693 (2005). When interpreting two statutes that deal with a similar subject matter, we construe them so that they do not contradict each other, and so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes. Id. RSA 674:41, II provides a method for an applicant suffering from practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship  the conditions needed to trigger that provision  to appeal a decision of a local administrative officer. RSA 674:41, I(c) does not conflict with RSA 674:41, II. Rather, it simply sets forth the procedure to be followed by those applicants who cannot, choose not, or need not, demonstrate a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Accordingly, discerning no error, we uphold the trial court's interpretation of the statutory scheme.