The plaintiff, Weare Land Use Association (Association), appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Mangones, J.) upholding the validity of an interim growth management оrdinance adopted by defendant Town of Weare (town). We affirm and remand.
The trial court found the following relevant facts. On March 9, 2004, the town adopted an interim growth management ordinance (ordinance), which for a one-year period beginning on March 9, 2004, prohibited defendant Town of Weare Planning Board (board) or Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) from formally accepting or acting upon “any site plan applications for single family housing, multi-family housing, mobile home parks or condominiums proposed ... оr any other major subdivision applications creating a total of more than 3 lots.” (Quotation omitted.) The ordinance applied to applications formally accepted after March 9, 2004, but not to those that were formally accepted prior to that date. The ordinance also limited to sixty the number of building permits thаt the town could issue for new dwellings during the one-year period.
In response to the adoption of the ordinance, the Association brought a petition for declаratory judgment, bill in equity, and request for a preliminary and permanent injunction, alleging that the ordinance was
On appeal, the Association argues that the trial court erred by failing to void the ordinance as an “ultra vires” enactment that exceeded the statutory authority included in RSA 674:23 (Supp. 2005). The Association argues that the ordinance violatеd rights conferred by “RSA 676:4 1(c)(1) which gives land owners the unequivocal right to have a completed application ‘accepted’ by formal vote protecting the applieation/plan from subsequently posted zoning ordinance changes pursuant to RSA 676:12 VI.” The Association also argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional under the substаntive due process rational basis test “in that the extent of the restriction beyond the building permit limitation bears no reasonable relationship to the legitimate limited оbjective of an ‘interim regulation’ controlling growth due to ‘unusual circumstances’ and unduly restricts fundamental rights.”
I. Validity Of The Ordinance
The Association argues that the ordinance is invalid because RSA 674:23 dоes not authorize the town “to suspend the legal protection and effect of RSA 676:4 and 676:12 nor deny access to the Board of Adjustment.” Specifically, the Associatiоn urges that the ordinance is an ultra vires enactment in derogation of the putatively superseding “rights” prescribed in RSA 676:4 and RSA 676:12.
We are the final arbiter of the meaning of a statutе as expressed by the words of the statute itself. Fillmore v. Fillmore,
•After defining what constitutes a completеd application in section 1(b), RSA 676:4,1(c)(1) (Supp. 2005) states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he board shall, at the next regular meeting or within 30 days following the delivery of the applicatiоn, ... determine if a submitted application is complete according to the board’s regulation and shall vote upon its acceptance.” RSA 676:12, VI (Supp. 2005) states, in рertinent part, that “[n]o proposed subdivision or site plan review or zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall affect a plat or application fоrmally accepted by the planning board pursuant to RSA 676:4, 1(b) so long as said plat or application was accepted prior to the first legal notice of sаid change or amendment.”
The ordinance in question was adopted under RSA 674:23, I, which provides that a town “may adopt an ordinance imposing interim regulations upon devеlopment” where “unusual circumstances requiring prompt attention” exist. The Association claims that the ordinance exceeds the authority of RSA 674:23 in that it prevents aрplications from being accepted under RSA 676:4, thereby denying them the protections afforded by RSA 676:12.
In rejecting the Association’s argument, the trial court stated:
The purpоse of the interim growth management ordinance, RSA 674:23, as previously codified at RSA 31:62-b, is to provide “a town [with] reasonable time to develop [or alter] a master or comprehensive plan and to provide for phasing in growth.” Conway [v. Town of Stratham,120 N.H. 257 , 258-59 (1980)]; RSA 674:23, I (Supp. 2003). This purpose would likely be defeated if RSA 676:4, 1(c)(1), and RSA 676:12, VI — both of which concern plats or applications that have been formally accepted by the Planning Board — were interpreted in the manner suggested by the Association. Moreover, interpreting RSA 676:4, 1(c)(1), and RSA 676:12, VI, in that fashiоn would have the effect of rendering RSA 674:23 rather meaningless. The Court “will not interpret the statute to produce such an illogical result.” Appeal of Soucy,139 N.H. 110 , 116 (1994) (quotation omitted).
We agree with the trial court’s statutory interpretation.
The Association argues that it is improper to rely upon Conway v. Town of Stratham because it “is dead letter.” Specifically, the Association contends that the instant case turns on RSA 676:4, which was enacted in 1983, three years after Conway was decided. In Conway, we upheld the validity of a slow-growth ordinance enacted pursuant to RSA 31:62-b,
Nowhere in RSA 674:23 does the legislature restrict which types of regulations may be used to carry out the above-stated purpose of the statute. Furthermore, the trial court correctly concluded that the Association’s interpretation of RSA 676:4, 1(c)(1) and RSA 676:12, VI “would have the effect of rendering RSA 674:23 rather meaningless.” We therеfore hold that the ordinance, enacted pursuant to RSA 674:23 and in accordance with our decision in Conway, is valid, and not ultra vires. We continue to recognize that interim growth ordinances are appropriate “temporary measure[s]” to control growth. Conway,
II. Substantive Due Process
The Association makes a substantive due process argument, contending that thе ordinance is unconstitutional in that “the extent of the restriction beyond the building permit limitation bears no reasonable relationship to the legitimate limited objectivе of an ‘interim regulation’ controlling growth due to ‘unusual circumstances’ and unduly restricts fundamental rights.” The trial court declined to address this claim because it could not “evaluate the Association’s as applied challenges without more specific information about the nature and scope of the rights and/or titles that have allegedly been affected by the [interim growth management ordinance].” See Dow v. Town of Effingham,
Affirmed and remanded.