After his request for a rehearing was denied, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence revealed other reasonable uses of the property that did not require a special exception. The trial court upheld the ZBA’s decision to grant the special exception, in essence holding that the ZBA interpreted the wetlands conservation district ordinance correctly. Interestingly, however, the trial court relied on Simplex v. Town of Newington, 145 N.H. 727 (2001), which established the unnecessary hardship standard that applies to variances, for its finding that a literal interpretation of the wetlands conservation district ordinance would be contrary to the property owner’s constitutionally protected property rights.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erroneously relied on Simplex and erroneously upheld the ZBA’s decision that no reasonable use could be made of the property without affecting wetlands.
The Court focused only on the latter of these arguments, holding that the evidence considered by the ZBA was sufficient to support its decision that the property owner complied with the wetlands conservation district ordinance by showing that no other reasonable use of the property could be made without the wetlands exception. The Court relied on the traditional principles of statutory construction, which also apply to municipal ordinances, in supporting the ZBA’s interpretation of the wetlands conservation ordinance. According to these rules of statutory construction, “words and phrases of an ordinance should be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language.” The Court noted that all the parties had agreed that a literal interpretation of the ordinance did not mean that the applicant had to disprove all other uses of the lot except its proposed use.
Other evidence deemed sufficient to uphold the ZBA’s finding that there was no other reasonable use of the land without the wetlands exception included: the large size of the lot with numerous pockets of wetlands scattered throughout; its location in the commercial district bordering two automobile dealerships, two bank branches and a clinic; lack of access from the state highway (Route 120); and lack of visibility from the road. A real estate expert had testified that the limited access and lack of visibility from the road required a large building like a supermarket and that small stores would not be visible from the highway. Evidence before the ZBA indicated that any large use would impact the wetlands to some degree, that the impact from the proposed use would be minimal and that the project had the recommendation of the Lebanon Conservation Commission.
Because this evidence supported the ZBA’s decision to grant the special exception, the Court declined to address the trial court’s reliance on Simplex.