Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Sullivan No. 2006-860 GUILDHALL SAND & GRAVEL, LLC v. TOWN OF GOSHEN & a. Argued: May 23, 2007 Opinion Issued: July 20, 2007 Ransmeier & Spellman, P.C., of Concord (Timothy E. Britain and John T. Alexander on the brief, and Mr. Alexander orally), for the plaintiff. Gardner, Fulton & Waugh, P.L.L.C., of Lebanon (H. Bernard Waugh, Jr. on the brief and orally), for defendant Town of Goshen. C. Christine Fillmore, of Concord, by brief, for the New Hampshire Local Government Center, as amicus curiae. DUGGAN, J. The plaintiff, Guildhall Sand & Gravel, LLC, appeals, and the defendants, the Town of Goshen (Town) and the Town of Goshen Planning Board (planning board), cross-appeal an order of the Superior Court (Burling, J.), ruling that certain of the Town's excavation regulations are preempted by state law. We reverse and remand.

I. Background The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff owns a commercial excavation business, which is located in Goshen and has been in operation since the 1950's. On March 20, 2004, the Town issued to the plaintiff an excavation permit, which will expire during 2007. When the plaintiff applies to renew the permit, its application will be subject to the Town's new excavation regulations, which were enacted after the plaintiff received the 2004 permit. In anticipation of this renewal, the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking to have the superior court declare that the Town's new excavation regulations are preempted by RSA chapter 155-E (2002 & Supp. 2006) and are therefore unenforceable. The plaintiff and the Town filed crossmotions for summary judgment. The superior court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, holding that three sections of the Town's ordinance were preempted by RSA chapter 155-E, but that the record was not sufficiently developed to render rulings on the eighteen remaining sections that pertain to excavation. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the superior court erred by not ruling upon the validity of all of the ordinance provisions and by not concluding that they all are preempted by RSA chapter 155-E. The Town agrees that the court erred by failing to rule upon the validity of all of the ordinance provisions, but contends that none of them is preempted by RSA chapter 155-E. II. Discussion A. Preemption and Excavation Regulations Towns are subdivisions of the State and have only such powers as are expressly or impliedly granted to them by the legislature. Arthur Whitcomb, Inc. v. Town of Carroll, 141 N.H. 402, 405 (1996). It is well-settled that towns cannot regulate a field that has been preempted by the State. JTR Colebrook v. Town of Colebrook, 149 N.H. 767, 770 (2003). Municipal legislation is preempted if it expressly contradicts state law or if it runs counter to the legislative intent underlying a statutory scheme. Id. Generally, a detailed and comprehensive state statutory scheme governing a particular field demonstrates legislative intent to preempt that field by placing exclusive control in the State's hands. Id. In such circumstances, municipal legislation dealing with that field runs counter to the state statutory scheme. Id. Bearing in mind these general principles, we begin with the point upon which the parties agree: that the superior court erred by not ruling upon the

2

validity of all of the Town's ordinance provisions. The question presented by this case

Download 2006-860, GUILDHALL SAND & GRAVEL, LLC v. TOWN OF GOSHEN.pdf

New Hampshire Law