The petitioner, David H. Johnson, appeals a decision of the board of tax and land appeals (BTLA) denying his appeals for an abatement of taxes assessed on his properties in the Town of Nelson. We reverse and remand.
The following facts are recited in the BTLA’s decision or are supported by the record. The petitioner owns two properties in Nelson, a 6.01 acre lot on which a single-family home is located and a .02 acre lot with frontage on Lake Nubanusit. The house lot has no road frontage; a 1.4 acre parcel
In 2006 and 2007, the tax years at issue, the Town assessed the land value of both properties owned by the taxpayer at $530,300. It assessed the house at a value of $71,900 and the improvements on the lakefront parcel, namely, two docks and a detached deck, at $8,200. Thus, the total assessed value of the taxpayer’s properties was $610,400.
The petitioner filed for an abatement and subsequently appealed to the BTLA. He chаllenged the joint assessment of his properties on the grounds that: (1) the properties are identified in his deed as two separate tracts and he may legally sell one without the other; and (2) because the lots are not contiguous, they may not be combined for assessment purposes. The petitioner submitted appraisals for the properties that valued his house and adjoining land at $293,000 and his lakefront lot with its improvements at $100,000, for a total of $393,000.
The town defended its assessments on the ground that the highest and best use of the petitioner’s two properties is as an assemblage. At the hearing before the BTLA, David Marazoff, who assessed the petitioner’s properties in 2006, testified to his opinion that the “valuation [of the petitioner’s properties] should be based on assemblage.” The BTLA accepted the following explanation of the assemblage doctrine:
The doctrine of assemblage applies when the highest and best use of separate parcels involves their integrated use with lands of another. Pursuant to this dоctrine, such prospective use may be properly considered in fixing the value of the property if the joinder of the parcels is reasonably practicable. If applicable, this doctrine allows a property owner to introducе evidence showing that the fair market value of his real estate is enhanced by its probable assemblage with other parcels.
(Quotation omitted.)
The BTLA denied the petitioner’s appeals, noting in its decision:
It is the board’s experience, having heard other appeals of similarly situated properties which have an improved house lot across the street from some smaller water access lot in common ownership, that there is a synergy between the relationship of the Properties and the value of the waterfront lot is captured in the improved lot with the dwelling.
(Footnote omitted.) The petitioner now appeals.
This appeal requires us to construe RSA 75:9 (2003). As to matters of statutory interpretation, “we are the final arbiters of the legislative intent as exprеssed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Appeal of Walsh,
The petitioner first argues that the Town’s assessment of both parcels’ land value together violates RSA 75:9, which provides:
Separate Tracts. Whenever it shall appear to the selectmen or assessors that 2 or more tracts of land which do not adjoin or are situated so as to become separate estates have the same owner, they shall appraise and describe each tract separately and cause such аppraisal and description to appear in their inventory. In determining whether or not contiguous tracts are separate estates, the selectmen or assessors shall give due regard to whether the tracts can legally be transferred separately under the provisions of the subdivision laws including RSA 676:18, RSA 674:37-a, and RSA 674:39-a.
The Town argues that the lots do adjoin for purposes of RSA 75:9 and that “the [properties are not so situated as to become separate estates.”
The Town first asserts that the petitioner “concedes . . . that if two properties are on opposite sides of a road, they may ‘adjoin’ for purposes of RSA 75:9,” and argues that because the petitioner’s right of way to the house parcel “is on the opposite side of the road from the lakefront parcel, the two parcels adjoin.
We have held that the terms “ ‘adjacent to,’ ‘adjoining,’ and ‘contiguous’ [are] synonymous and mean[] ‘in contact with.’ ” Sibson v. State, 110
We reject the contention that cоntact with or connection by a right-of-way renders two lots adjoining for purposes of RSA 75:9. Cf People v. Dickinson,
The Town next contends that assemblage оf the petitioner’s lots does not violate RSA 75:9 because “the [properties are not so situated as to become separate estates.” We have held that under RSA 75:9, “two or more tracts having the same owner must be appraised and described sеparately if they ‘do not adjoin’ or if they ‘are situated so as to become separate estates.’ ” Fearon v. Town of Amherst,
The Town, nevertheless, argues that Fearon supports its argument that RSA 75:9 does not preclude assemblage here. It notes that Fearon quoted Town of Lenox v. Oglesby,
The petitioner next argues that the BTLA erred in rejecting the appraisals he submitted on the grounds that they failed to contain “a thorough highest and best usе analysis” because the petitioner’s appraiser did not consider “whether the market value of the Properties as a combined, single economic unit exceeded the combination of the values determined in her appraisals.” Having cоncluded that such an assemblage of the petitioner’s parcels would violate RSA 75:9, we hold that the BTLA erred in rejecting the appraisals on that basis.
The Town contends that a strict interpretation of RSA 75:9 is contrary to RSA 75:1, which requires the appraisal of “аll . . . taxable property [not previously listed] at its market value,” RSA 75:1 (Supp. 2010), and to the requirement that in abatement proceedings, the BTLA must consider the assessments on all of the taxpayer’s property. Even assuming, without deciding, that RSA 75:1 would otherwise require application of the assemblage doctrine to arrive at market value, it does not require it here.
It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.
State v. Bell,
When a taxpayer challenges an assessment on a given parcel of land, the [BTLA] must consider assessments on any other of the taxpayer’s properties, for a taxpayer is not entitled to an abatement on any given parcel unless the aggregate valuation placed on all of his property is unfavorably disproportionate to the assessment of property generally in the town. Justice does not require the correction of errors of valuation whose joint effect is not injurious to the appellant.
Appeal of Town of Sunapee,
Nevertheless, the рetitioner presented evidence of a $217,400 increase in the total appraised value of his two properties when valued as an assemblage as compared to when appraised separately, as mandated by RSA 75:9. Thus, this case is the converse of Fearon, in which we held:
The town does not dispute that the assessment would be lower if the property were held by a single deed. The town has increased the assessment by treating the property as four tracts. The board [of taxation] has found that the circumstancеs of this case do not justify such treatment. Thus the town has improperly discriminated in favor of persons who hold their property by a single deed and has cast a disproportionate share of the burden of taxation upon the plaintiffs.
Fearon,
In light of our holding that RSA 75:9 requires the petitioner’s properties to be appraised separately, we find it unnecessary to address the petitioner’s arguments related to the joint assessments of other properties or the relation of comparable sales to the combined assessed value of his properties.
Reversed and remanded.