holding that ordinance which generally promotes public welfare is unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied to landowner’s property
How later courts described this case
- holding that ordinance which generally promotes public welfare is unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied to landowner’s property
- 200-foot frontage requirement does not have substantial relationship to safe access by emergency vehicles because significantly narrower strip would serve that purpose
- plaintiffs’ notice that the town’s frontage requirement might prohibit their building on their property did not bar the plaintiffs from challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as arbitrary and unreasonable
- zoning ordinance requiring 200 feet of frontage for public vehicle access an unreasonable regulation where 123 feet of frontage provided ready access
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Boulders at Strafford, LLC v. Town of Strafford, 153 N.H. 633 (2006)
A provision requiring the discontinuance of a nonconforming use will be deemed unreasonable if no public purpose supports it or if the amortization period is inadequate." (citations omitted)), and Metzger v. Town of Brentwood, 117 N.H. 497, 502, 374 A.2d 954 (1977) ("The police power and the right to private property must be considered together as interdependent, the one qualifying and limiting the other." (quotation…
Distinguished
Distinguished by Sanderson v. Town of Candia, 146 N.H. 598 (2001)
Id. Metzger is distinguishable from this case.
The opinion
*504 Lampron, J.,
dissenting:
It cannot be contested that the town of Brentwood is empowered to regulate by means of a zoning ordinance the use of the lands and buildings therein to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community. RSA 31:60; Metzger v. Brentwood, 115 N.H. 287 , 343 A.2d 24 (1975). The majority opinion cannot deny that the town’s ordinance can constitutionally require that a single family dwelling in a residential-agricultural district must be built on a lot which has at least 200 feet frontage on a public right of way. State v. Dean, 109 N.H. 245 , 248 A.2d 707 (1968). Although plaintiffs’ lot has a frontage of 580 feet on Haigh Road, it is a fact that it does not have 200 feet frontage on that part of Haigh Road which is a public right of way as required by the ordinance.
Zoning by its nature restricts and regulates the use of land, and it is inevitable that a zoning regulation permitting certain uses of land and proscribing others will adversely affect individual rights in some cases. See Lachapelle v. Goffstown, 107 N.H. 485, 489 , 225 A.2d 624, 627 (1967). It is true that in order to build a single family dwelling on their land in compliance with the terms of the ordinance, plaintiffs would have to petition the town under RSA 234:18-a, : 19 to lay out a highway in front of their property with ensuing expenses to them. See KBW, Inc. v. Bennington, 115 N.H., 392, 342 A.2d 653 (1975). Whether plaintiffs follow this course or not, the record will not permit a conclusion that plaintiffs’ land has been rendered worthless and useless by the requirements of the ordinance thus constituting its unconstitutional taking. Sibson v. State, 115 N.H. 124 , 336 A.2d 239 (1975).
Kenison, C.J., concurs in this dissent.