Opinion ID: 2371662
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grandfathering of Lot A-30

Text: 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.