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

Heading: Yield Plan

Text: [T]he interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law, which we review de novo. 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. When the language of an ordinance is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the ordinance itself for further indications of legislative intent, and we will not guess what the drafters of the ordinance might have intended, or add words that they did not see fit to include. Stankiewicz v. City of Manchester, 156 N.H. 587, 592, 938 A.2d 873 (2007) (citations omitted). Section 13 establishes the requirements for an open space development. The intent of the section is to enable the applicant to decrease lot sizes and leave the land `saved' by doing so as open space. . . . Deering Zoning Ordinance § 13.4, a. The total area of dedicated open space shall equal a percentage of 50% of the total buildable area. Id. § 13.5, f. Buildable area is defined as [t]he area of a site that does not include slopes of 25% or more, submerged areas, utility right-of-ways, wetlands and their buffers. Id. § 13.7, a. An applicant seeking to develop an open space subdivision must also comply with certain requirements, including, inter alia, submission of a valid yield plan, id. § 13.5, b, which is defined as [a] plan submitted by the applicant showing a feasible conventional subdivision under the requirements of the specific zoning district in which the property is located and the requirements of any and all State and local subdivision regulations. Id. § 13.7, d. The yield plan is used by the planning board to determine the appropriate density for the development. It must show that the net density will be no greater than permitted within that zoning district for a conventional subdivision or development. Id. § 13.5, b. The ordinance further provides that [t]he yield plan is meant to be conceptual in nature but must be realistic and not show potential house sites or streets in areas that would not ordinarily be legally permitted in a conventional layout. Id. § 13.5, b.(1) The plaintiff makes several arguments regarding the interpretation of the yield plan. He argues that: (1) the express purpose of the yield plan is to establish the allowable density on the lot, and judging [the yield plan] based upon [the] general goals and objectives of the open space subdivision form of development renders the overall scheme inherently contradictory; (2) for regulatory purposes, the lot necessarily includes the portion burdened by the existing conservation easement; and (3) the ordinance does not preclude the use of existing open space, or land burdened by a conservation easement, in satisfying open space requirements. In support of his last argument, the plaintiff points out that, under the terms of the ordinance, the open space preserved must equal fifty percent of the total buildable area, id. § 13.5, f., and the definition of buildable area does not exclude land already subject to a conservation easement, id. § 13.7, a. In his first argument, the plaintiff fails to point to an example of where the trial court judged the yield plan based upon [the] general goals and objectives of the open space subdivision form of development. However, even if the trial court had so judged the yield plan, the plaintiff fails to sufficiently develop this argument in his brief. He does not assert, for example, how the yield plan should be properly judged in light of the open space subdivision requirements. His argument is conclusory at best. Accordingly, we find no error. The plaintiff's second and third arguments miss an important point. Even assuming, arguendo, that the conservation easement land can be included in the yield plan and considered as part of the entire lot for purposes of satisfying the fifty percent open space requirement, the yield plan submitted by the plaintiff does not satisfy the ordinance requirements for a yield plan. The language of section 13 is clear: a yield plan must show a  feasible conventional subdivision, id. § 13.7, d. (emphasis added), and must be realistic and not show potential house sites or streets in areas that would not ordinarily be legally permitted in a conventional layout, id. § 13.5, b.(1) (emphasis added). The plaintiff's yield plan places lots within the conservation easement land. The restrictions of the conservation easement granted to the town, however, do not allow the land to be developed in this manner. The easement provides, inter alia, that: The Property shall be maintained in perpetuity as open space; The Property shall not be subdivided; and No dwelling . . . shall be constructed, placed or introduced onto the Property. While we recognize that the yield plan is conceptual, id. § 13.5, b.(1), the ordinance expressly requires that the yield plan be realistic, id., and feasible, id. § 13.7, d. We read this to require that the conventional subdivision shown on the yield plan could actually be developed in accordance with all applicable restrictions and regulations. See id. § 13.5, b.(4) (The yield plan shall comply with conventional subdivision standards and shall not require a variance or waiver from the existing ordinances or regulations in order to achieve the layout supporting the proposed density[.]). Because the conservation easement land can never be developed as a part of a subdivision, locating lots on this land is not realistic, id. § 13.5, b.(1), and does not depict a feasible conventional subdivision, id. § 13.7, d. Accordingly, it was not error for the trial court to affirm the ZBA's decision to uphold the planning board's finding that the yield plan did not satisfy section 13 of the ordinance.