Sutton v. Town of Gilford, 160 N.H. 43

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered a dispute over whether two contiguous substandard lots on Governor's Island had been automatically merged under the Town of Gilford's zoning ordinance. The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies barred the abutting landowner's challenge to construction authorized by an amended building permit, but did not bar her declaratory judgment claim concerning the property's merged status. It further held that RSA 674:39-a, governing voluntary mergers, did not preclude municipalities from adopting automatic merger provisions, and affirmed the finding that the lots had merged.

Holdings

1. The exhaustion doctrine barred Sutton from seeking injunctive relief in superior court to challenge construction undertaken pursuant to the October 29, 2007 amended building permit because she failed to appeal that permit to the zoning board of adjustment.
2. Failure to appeal the amended building permit did not bar Sutton's declaratory-judgment claim seeking a determination that Aichinger owned a single merged lot.
3. RSA 674:39-a, which authorizes voluntary merger by a property owner, does not prohibit a municipality from requiring automatic merger of contiguous nonconforming lots in common ownership through its zoning ordinance.
4. Aichinger's two parcels had been automatically merged into a single lot under Gilford's zoning ordinance.
5. The ordinance exception for a lawful and preexisting principal use on each lot did not apply because the structure on former lot 9 was an accessory guest house and garage, not a single-family residence constituting a principal use.
6. The Town was not municipally estopped from enforcing its automatic-merger ordinance because Aichinger's reliance on the Town officials' erroneous representations was unreasonable.
7. The agreement between Aichinger and the Town did not defeat Sutton's statutorily protected claims concerning the property's merged status because Sutton was not a party to the agreement.
8. The superior court did not err by denying Aichinger's request to reopen the hearing to present additional evidence on merger and municipal estoppel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sutton's failure to appeal Aichinger's amended building permit to the zoning board of adjustment barred Sutton's request for injunctive relief challenging construction authorized by that permit.
2. Whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred Sutton's request for a declaratory judgment concerning whether Aichinger's parcels had merged.
3. Whether RSA 674:39-a precluded Gilford from automatically merging contiguous nonconforming lots under its zoning ordinance.
4. Whether the ordinance's exception for a lawful and preexisting principal use on each lot prevented automatic merger.
5. Whether the Town's representations and agreement with Aichinger established municipal estoppel or altered the merged status of the property.
6. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the merits hearing to receive additional evidence on merger and municipal estoppel.

Disposition

other