Joy Street, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield:
A Lesson in Preemption and Local Zoning Ordinances
The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s recent decision in Joy Street, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between local zoning ordinances and state statutes in the context of land use regulations. This case offers a reminder of the importance of understanding the interplay between these two levels of regulation and the potential legal disputes that can arise when a property owner fails to comply with both.
The case revolved around a dispute between Joy Street, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) and the Town of Chesterfield over the construction of a deck and walkways using permeable pavers. While the Plaintiff had obtained a permit from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (“NHDES”) for the installation of these pavers, the Town of Chesterfield later determined that the pavers were impermeable structures under its Chesterfield Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”) 203.6. This finding meant that the pavers, along with other existing structures on the property, exceeded the allowed impervious lot coverage. Impervious lot coverage is an important factor in zoning regulations and land use planning because it can have significant impacts on stormwater runoff levels, water quality, and the overall environmental health of an area.
The Plaintiff appealed the Town’s decision to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”), which ultimately denied the appeal. Following a subsequent unsuccessful appeal to the Superior Court, the Plaintiff took the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for review.
Key Issue: Preemption
The central issue in the case concerned the doctrine of preemption, which generally means that a municipal regulation is invalid if it conflicts with or is otherwise inconsistent with state law. Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that the Town’s zoning ordinance was preempted by the relevant state statute, the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (the “Shoreland Protection Act”), RSA ch. 483-B (2013).
The New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed with the Plaintiff’s argument. In its decision, the Court emphasized that the Shoreland Protection Act explicitly allows municipalities to adopt more stringent land use controls and provides that the more stringent standard should control in the event of any conflict between local and state laws. This express grant of authority served as the basis for the Court’s conclusion that the state statute did not preempt the local zoning ordinance, leading to a victory for the Town.
Implications for Property Owners and Local Authorities:
This decision serves as a reminder to property owners of the need to carefully consider and comply with both local zoning ordinances and state statutes when undertaking any development project. And, Joy Street highlights the potential for disputes to arise when there is ambiguity or inconsistency between different levels of regulation. Of course, experienced legal counsel can provide crucial guidance for property owners, helping them successfully navigate complex land use issues in New Hampshire.
Additionally, the case underscores the significance of utilizing precise language when drafting land use regulations. Local authorities should be mindful of the potential for conflicts between their regulations and state laws and should strive to draft ordinances that clearly and effectively address local land use concerns without running afoul of state statutes.
At bottom, the decision in Joy Street, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield provides valuable insights into the relationship between local zoning ordinances and state statutes in the context of land use regulations. By upholding the more stringent local standard, the Court reaffirmed the principle that municipalities have the authority to enact and enforce their own land use controls, even when they may be more restrictive than applicable state law.
You can contact Alfano Law Office by calling (603) 856-8411 or at this link.