Property

Brief

Britton v. Town of Chester

Procedural History:

• Trial court ruled the ordinance to be unconstitutional in favor of Britton.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Facts:

• Most of the available housing stock in the town of Chester is single family homes.
• It is known as a ‘bedroom’ community and most people commute to Manchester for work.
• The plaintiffs in the case are a group of low and moderate income people who have been unsuccessful in finding affordable and adequate housing in the town.
• Another plaintiff is Raymond Remillard who is a home builder.
• The current zoning ordinance in 1985 was:
  • Single family homes on 2 acre lots.
  • Duplex on 3 acre lots and all five zoning districts prohibited multi-family housing.
• In 1986 however it was modified to include multi-family housing.
  • However, they are only allowed on tracts not less than 20 acres in two designated R-2 zoning districts.
  • Only half the land in those districts could reasonably be used for that.
• Also several subjective restrictions.
• Planning board also has ultimate say and does not have to abide by any objective standards.

Issue:

• Is the current zoning ordinance unconstitutional?

Holding:

• Yes. It is exclusionary.

Reasoning:

• The court feels the regulations should promote the general welfare and this ordinance does not.
• The ordinance does not provide for the lawful needs of the community.
• The court also ordered relief for plaintiff Remillard through a “builders remedy”.
  • This was due to the development not adversely effecting the community.