Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Page 8- July 15, 1995 Z.B. wSpot Zoning -- Landowner Says Rezoning Is Unlawful Spot Zoning Milter v. Tow~ of Tilto~, 655 A.2d 409 (New Hampshire) ]995 In 1989, Miller bought industrially zoned land in the town of Tilton, N.H. His deed referred to a 1984 subdivision plan that said thc property was in an "agricultural buffer zone" between residential and industrial property. The ag- ricultural buffer zone's borders had shifted several times over the course of a decade. On Dec. 12, 1990, a neighboring residential property owner petitioned the town to amend/ts zoning ordinance so the agricultural buffer zone would be enlarged to its original borders. This would require some industrial land, in- cluding Miller's property, to be rezoned agricultural. Under state law, petitions to amend zoning ordinances had to be filed with the municipality "between 120 and 90 days prior to the annual town or village district meeting." When counting the number of days, the day of the town meeting was not included. After a hearing on Jan. 8, 1991, the planning board voted against the peti- tion. At the March 12, 1991, town meeting, the town's residents voted to amend the ordinance anyway. Miller's land was rezoned agricultural. Miller sued, asking a court to declare that th. ordinance amendment consti- tuted impermissible spot zoning. He asked the court for judgment without a trial, saying the rezoning petition was not filed within the right time frame. The court denied Miller's request for judgment, finding the petition was filed on time. The court also validated the amendment. It said the rezoning was a change in an area border, not spot zoning. The court also noted that a majority of the town's residents supported the amendment and that the change would "protect the health and welfare of area residents." Miller appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Both the trial court's decisions were correct. The neighbor filed the petition on the ninetieth day before the town meet- ing. Therefore, it was filed within the right time. The rezoning was not spot zoning A Miller's property was not unjustifi- ably singled out for different treatment. Just because the area was small and rezoned at a single landowner's request did make it spot zoning. Miller did not show the rezoning was unreasonable or unlawful. The rezoning was consis- tent with the town's comprehensive plan, which sought not only to encourage industrial development, but also to enhance the quality of existing an.d future residential neighborhoods. Miller failed to show that an agricultural buffer between residential and industrial land conflicted with the town's master plan. Qui~la/~ v. City of Dove~; 614 A.2d 1057 (1992). Schadlic£ v. Co~zcord, 234 A.2d 523 (]967). C[ou.eh v. Wiltons, ]04A. 453 (1918).