Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton
4 ERC 1746, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20018, 469 F.2d 956 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Zoning ordinances imposing large minimum lot sizes may be a constitutional, legitimate stop-gap measure to preserve a rural town's ecological balance, scenic values, and rural character, and to manage the financial burdens of growth, provided they are not arbitrary or intended as permanent barriers without further study.
Facts:
- The Town of Sanbornton, New Hampshire, a small rural community of about 1,000 year-round residents, became a popular recreational and resort area after Interstate Highway 93 opened, attracting urbanites.
- Steel Hill Development, Inc. acquired 510 acres in Sanbornton in December 1969 and began planning for the construction of 500 to 515 family units, including 'cluster' development.
- At the time Steel Hill acquired the land, it was zoned General Residence and Agricultural, requiring a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet (about three-fourths of an acre).
- Steel Hill engaged in negotiations with the town planning board during 1970 to pursue its 'cluster' plan, which required zoning amendments.
- A public meeting in November 1970 saw about one hundred townsfolk express opposition to any development by Steel Hill, and a petition was presented to zone the entire town as six-acre minimum lots.
- The town planning board then proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, enlarging Forest Conservation areas and increasing minimum acreage requirements in various districts.
- In March 1971, Sanbornton passed these amendments, resulting in approximately 70 percent of Steel Hill's land being zoned for Forest Conservation (six-acre minimum) and 30 percent for Agricultural (three-acre minimum).
- Steel Hill's proposed 'cluster' or conventional development plans became inconsistent with the newly enacted zoning ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Steel Hill Development, Inc. purchased 510 acres in Sanbornton, New Hampshire in December 1969, planning for residential development.
- In March 1971, the Town of Sanbornton amended its zoning ordinance, significantly increasing minimum lot sizes across much of Steel Hill's property to three and six acres.
- Steel Hill Development, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against the Town of Sanbornton.
- Steel Hill alleged that the new zoning ordinance was unconstitutional, claiming it had no rational relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare (violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), constituted a taking of its property without just compensation, and violated the Equal Protection Clause due to arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions.
- The district court ruled against Steel Hill Development, Inc. on all counts, upholding the town's zoning ordinance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a rural town's zoning ordinance, which significantly increases minimum lot size requirements (to three and six acres) across a substantial portion of a developer's land, violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, or constitute a taking without just compensation, when the town's stated goal is to preserve its rural character, ecological balance, and manage growth, even without specific scientific studies justifying the precise acreage?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Chief Judge
No, a rural town's zoning ordinance, including those with large minimum lot size requirements, does not necessarily violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses or constitute a taking, particularly when it serves as a temporary measure to protect the community's general welfare. The court determined that Sanbornton's three-acre minimum lot size was justified by health and safety concerns related to topography and soil conditions (pollution, sewage, drainage, erosion). For the six-acre requirement, while not solely justified by health and safety, it was found reasonably related to the general welfare of the community under N.H. R.S.A. ch. 31:60. The court considered factors such as preventing Lake Winnisquam pollution, mitigating traffic and air pollution, discouraging population density, providing for orderly growth, preserving the town's rural character and scenic values, avoiding ecological harm from large-scale development that would double the town's population, and alleviating financial burdens on town services (police, fire, sewer, road). The court distinguished this case from suburban exclusionary zoning precedents, noting that Steel Hill sought to create a demand for second homes in a rural area rather than satisfy existing suburban expansion. While acknowledging the town's lack of a professional study for the specific six-acre figure, the court viewed the ordinance as a 'legitimate stop-gap measure' to buy time for future planning, given the current uncertainty between ecological and population pressures. The court affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing that this was a 'very special case' and not a general approval of six-acre zoning, and that such requirements might not indefinitely stand without more precise planning. The court also found no taking, as Steel Hill's land, though decreased in value, was not rendered worthless or useless. Additionally, no discrimination was found since Steel Hill's land, like all other land similarly zoned, was essentially virgin forest.
Analysis:
This case is significant for expanding the scope of 'general welfare' in rural zoning to include ecological, scenic, and rural character preservation, as well as managing the financial burdens of growth, especially concerning second-home development. It distinguishes rural zoning from traditional suburban exclusionary zoning, suggesting that more restrictive measures might be permissible in unique, undeveloped areas. The opinion introduces the concept of a 'legitimate stop-gap measure,' allowing towns to implement temporary restrictive zoning to buy time for comprehensive planning, but with a warning that such measures may not stand indefinitely without more thorough study and justification.
