Reno v. Town of Hopkinton

• Decision Date: 31 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 7076,7076
• Citation: 115 N.H. 706,349 A.2d 585
• Parties: Marion S. RENO et al. v. TOWN OF HOPKINTON.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 585

349 A.2d 585

115 N.H. 706

Marion S. RENO et al. v. TOWN OF HOPKINTON.

No. 7076.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Dec. 31, 1975.

Orr & Reno Concord (Robert H. Reno, Concord, orally), for plaintiffs.

Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Charles G. Cleaveland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Bd. of Taxation.

GRIFFITH, Justice.

This is an appeal under RSA ch. 541 from a decision of the board of taxation upholding the refusal of the town of Hopkinton to classify one hundred twenty-seven acres of appellant taxpayers' land as 'wild land' in accordance with the provisions of RSA 79-A:2 XIII (Supp.1975). See N.C. Const. pt. 2, art. 5-B.

RSA 79-A:2 XIII (Supp.1975) defines 'wild land' as follows: "Wild land' See N.H. Const. pt. 2, art. 5-B. there are no detrimental structures and on which the owner is not substantially interfering with the natural ecological process as determined and classified by criteria developed by the board.' The board referred to is the Current Use Advisory Board, (RSA 79-A:3 (Supp.1975)) consisting of eleven members including certain named department heads or their designees and some appointees.

The board established a schedule of criteria and values for the various current land uses listed in RSA ch. 79-A (Supp.1975) and as authorized by that statute. Under VI of the criteria are listed certain alternatives for qualifying 'wild land' of which the following is applicable to the present case:

'A. Qualifying 'wild land' means:

1. A tract of unimproved land of at least ten (10) contiguous acres which by its nature is incapable of producing commercial agriculture or forest crops and which is being left in its natural state without interference with the ecological process;'

The board of taxation found that the taxpayers' land was unimproved, that there are no detrimental structures on the land, and that the owners have not substantially interfered with the ecological processes. However, the board found as a fact that the land in question was capable of producing commercial forest crops and so failed to meet the criteria established by the Current Use Advisory Board. The decision of the board of taxation is overruled since it is based upon a criterion established by the Current Use Advisory Board which impermissibly narrows the statutory definition of 'wild land' and contravenes the express purpose of the statute.

Criteria and rules and regulations may properly be promulgated by administrative boards when so authorized by the legislature with proper standards. Opinion of the Justices, 99 N.H. 528, 114 A.2d 514 (1955); Ferretti v. Jackson, 88 N.H. 296, 188 A. 474 (1936); State v. Normand, 76 N.H. 541, 85 A. 899 (1913). This does not authorize a board to 'add to, change, or modify the statute.' Id. at 545, 85 A. at 901; Whitney v. Watson, 85 N.H. 238, 240, 157 A. 78, 80 (1931). The authority granted is designed only to permit the board to fill in the details to effectuate the purpose of the statute. Hanover Precinct v. Atkins, 78 N.H. 308, 310, 99 A. 293, 294 (1916).

The taxpayers in this case were found by the board of taxation to be maintaining their land in conformity with the requirements of the statute as 'wild land.' The stated purpose of the statute is to 'encourage the preservation of open space' and 'to prevent the conversion of open space to more intensive use' by means of 'assessment of land value for property taxation on the basis...