This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a rural community. Ps own roughly 800 acres of land in the southeast corner of town, which they purchased between 1962 and 1990. They manage the property for forestry. For tax purposes, they keep all but a few acres classified as open space land. Ps have never attempted to develop their land and have no plans to do so. In 1989, D adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance permits forestry and single-family dwellings within the mountain and forest districts. It establishes a minimum conforming lot size of fifty acres. The stated objectives of the mountain and forest district include: (1) encouraging the continuation of large tracts of forest land; (2) encouraging 'forestry and timber harvesting,' while permitting other compatible uses including low-density development; (3) protecting wildlife habitat and natural area; and (4) avoiding unreasonable town expenses. P submitted a protest petition to the town pursuant to RSA 675:5 (1986). D's board of selectmen held a rehearing but did not sustain Ps' challenge. Ps appealed to the superior court. Ps claim that the zoning ordinance is exclusionary because it effectively precludes the development of low- or moderate-income housing on their property in the mountain and forest district. The trial court ruled that Ps lacked standing to challenge the ordinance on that basis. The superior court upheld the validity of the ordinance. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.