Handley v. Town of Hooksett
| Decision Date | 14 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000–020.,2000–020. |
| Citation | 785 A.2d 399,147 N.H. 184 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gerald HANDLEY v. TOWN OF HOOKSETT. |
Boutin & Associates, PLLC, of Londonderry (Brenda E. Keith and Edmund J. Boutin, on the brief, and Mr. Boutin orally), for the plaintiff.
Upton, Sanders & Smith, of Concord (Lauren S. Irwin and Barton L. Mayer, on the brief, and Mr. Mayer orally), for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Gerald Handley, appeals an order of the Superior Court (McGuire , J.) holding that RSA 675:5 (1996) does not require towns to determine the validity of a protest petition prior to the vote on a warrant article and that the defendant, Town of Hooksett (town), had not impermissibly combined multiple amendments to its zoning ordinance into a single ballot question. We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. On January 20, 1999, the town posted the warrant for its annual meeting. Among the questions to be voted on was Warrant Article 2, Amendment 4 (ballot question), which sought to alter both the square footage and frontage requirements for lots in medium- and high-density residential districts. The plaintiff and others filed a timely protest petition, which, if signed by the owners of twenty percent of the area of the lots affected by the ballot question, would have increased the vote needed to pass it to a two-thirds majority. See RSA 675:5, I-a(a).
As required by RSA 675:5, II(b), the town clerk posted the following notice at the polling place after receiving the protest petition:
As a result of the receipt of this protest petition, a two-thirds vote of the town meeting may be required to pass the zoning amendment.
In addition, as required by statute, the moderator announced at the opening of the polls that a protest petition had been received. The validity of the petition, however, was not determined by town officials until after the voting was completed.
At the close of the polls, the official tabulation revealed a total of 718 votes cast with 463 in favor of the ballot question and 255 opposed. In the event a two-thirds majority was ultimately required, the ballot question would have needed to receive 479 votes. After a recount, the results were modified. The revised election results revealed that 722 votes were cast, with 465 in favor of the ballot question and 257 opposed. Based upon the revised tabulations, a two-thirds majority would have required 481 votes. Prior to the recount, but one day after the election, the town administrator announced at a meeting of town council (council) that an examination of the protest petition had begun. The pre-recount results of the balloting were published at the same meeting.
Less than ten days later, the town administrator prepared a memorandum for the council stating that the acreage owned by the signatories to the protest petition represented only fourteen percent of the total acreage affected by the ballot question, less than the statutorily required minimum of twenty percent. See RSA 675:5, I-a(a). Five days later, upon the recommendation of the town administrator, the council declared the protest petition invalid. Because the petition was invalid, the ballot question passed by a simple majority vote. See RSA 675:3, I (Supp.2000). Pursuant to RSA 677:2 (Supp.2000), the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing with the council, which was denied.
The plaintiff appealed to the superior court, arguing that the council was obligated to determine the validity of the protest petition before voting on the warrant began. During the hearing of his appeal, the plaintiff also contended that the town impermissibly combined six separate zoning amendments—relating to the square footage and frontage requirements in the affected districts—into a single ballot question. The plaintiff asserted that the six amendments should have been separate ballot questions or, at the least, grouped into two questions representing amendments to the medium- and high-density residential districts.
The trial court ruled that although RSA 675:5 requires that the council decide the validity of a timely-filed protest petition, neither the statute nor applicable case law dictates when such a determination must be made. Given the difficulty of compiling the tax and other records necessary to calculate the acreage represented by those who signed the petition, the trial court concluded that the town's decision to postpone examination of the petition until after the election was reasonable. Regarding the plaintiff's contention that the town impermissibly combined multiple amendments into a single ballot question, the court concluded that even if the town had separated the proposed amendments to the ordinance into two separate ballot questions for the medium-and high-density residential districts, there would have been insufficient acreage represented by the petition to successfully protest either district. Therefore, the trial court ruled that "[p]laintiff's challenge [to] the [format of the] amendment ... d[id] not cure [his] invalid protest petition." The court did not address the plaintiff's argument that six separate questions should have been presented on the ballot. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in ruling that: (1) the town was not required to determine the validity of the protest petition prior to the voting; (2) the town council had jurisdiction to decide the petition's validity after the election was held; (3) the town administrator, a non-resident of the town, had standing to direct the town to review the petition; (4) the town had not impermissibly combined six separate amendments into a single ballot question; and (5) the totality of the circumstances did not render the council's ruling impermissible or unconstitutional.
We first address the plaintiff's argument that the town was obligated to determine the validity of the protest petition before voting began. In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning. See Neville v. Highfields Farm , 144 N.H. 419, 424, 744 A.2d 89 (1999). Further, when examining statutory language, we construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and to avoid an absurd or unjust result. See Appeal of Estate of Van Lunen , 145 N.H. 82, 86, 750 A.2d 737 (2000). Unless we find that statutory language is ambiguous, we do not look to legislative intent. See Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624, 626, 620 A.2d 1039 (1993).
Concluding, as we do, that the statute does not mandate a determination of the validity of a protest petition prior to voting, we also conclude that such a result is neither unjust nor absurd. Towns are faced with the difficult task of compiling tax and other records necessary to calculate the acreage represented by the signatories to a protest petition. In a perfect world, such calculations would occur prior to voting. However, whether a town completes the arduous task of calculating acreage prior to voting has no effect upon whether voters were properly notified or whether the petition was timely submitted.
The plaintiff next argues that the council lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the protest petition following the vote and that the town administrator lacked authority to direct the council to review the petition in the first instance. The plaintiff's contentions rest upon the assumption that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial