## Facts

- The Town of Lyme adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance creating a Mountain and Forest District with a 50-acre minimum lot size.
- The ordinance stated objectives including preserving large tracts of land and encouraging forestry and timber harvesting.
- Finn and Barbara Caspersen, trustees of a revocable trust, owned about 800 acres within the district, managed primarily for forestry and largely classified as open space for tax purposes.
- The Caspersens challenged the 50-acre minimum as unconstitutional, unlawfully exclusionary of low- and moderate-income housing, inconsistent with New Hampshire growth-management statutes, and improperly adopted.
- The Caspersens conceded they had not attempted to develop the land and had no plans to construct low- or moderate-income housing on their property.
- The superior court upheld the ordinance; the Caspersens appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Caspersens had standing as “persons aggrieved” under RSA 677:4 to challenge the zoning ordinance.
2. Whether the 50-acre minimum lot size violated substantive due process by lacking a rational relationship to legitimate governmental objectives.
3. Whether the ordinance violated equal protection by treating the Mountain and Forest District differently from other zoning districts.
4. Whether the ordinance was unlawfully exclusionary by effectively barring low- and moderate-income housing from the district.
5. Whether the ordinance violated New Hampshire “controlled growth” statutes, including RSA 674:22.
6. Whether the Town complied with statutory procedures in adopting the ordinance.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment upholding the zoning ordinance.
- The Caspersens had standing because the ordinance affected the permissible subdivision and development potential of their land.
- The 50-acre minimum lot size survived substantive due process review because it was rationally related to legitimate land-use objectives reflected in the Town’s planning.
- The ordinance did not violate equal protection because district-based distinctions were rationally justified by differing land characteristics and planning goals.
- The ordinance was not unlawfully exclusionary; the challengers did not show the zoning scheme, viewed town-wide, functioned to exclude low- and moderate-income housing or was adopted for that purpose.
- The ordinance did not violate controlled growth statutes because it functioned as standard, plan-based zoning rather than a growth-control measure governed by RSA 674:22.
- The ordinance was properly adopted after the required municipal procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning challenger has standing under RSA 677:4 when the ordinance affects the challenger’s property interests, even without a completed development proposal.
- Zoning ordinances are presumed valid; challengers bear the burden to show the regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate public purpose.
- Substantive due process and equal protection challenges to land-use regulations generally receive rational-basis review absent a suspect classification or fundamental right.
- Differential zoning treatment among districts is permissible when supported by legitimate planning considerations tied to the characteristics of the land and municipal objectives.
- Exclusionary zoning claims require proof that the zoning scheme, considered as a whole, operates to exclude protected housing opportunities or was enacted for an exclusionary purpose; asserted exclusion limited to a single district is insufficient without broader proof.
- Controlled-growth statutes governing growth-management measures do not invalidate plan-based zoning ordinances that are not structured as temporary moratoria, quotas, or similar growth-control devices.
- Zoning ordinances will be upheld when adopted through required municipal notice, hearing, and voting procedures.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Lyme’s 50-acre minimum lot size in the Mountain and Forest District, finding the challengers had standing but failed to prove constitutional, statutory, exclusionary, or procedural defects in an ordinance tied to legitimate rural and forestry planning objectives.


Caspersen v. Town of Lyme, 661 A.2d 759 (N.H. 1995)