## Facts

- Pearl Durant owned land in Dunbarton, New Hampshire, and submitted a subdivision plan in April 1977 creating eight lots fronting on a state highway (Jewett Road).
- A state water and pollution control agency issued a certificate approving the plan, and Durant presented the plan to the town planning board.
- After a hearing and multiple site visits, the Dunbarton Planning Board denied approval, citing: (1) potential disruption of natural watercourses, (2) potential traffic sight-distance problems for driveways onto the state highway, and (3) potential septic-system problems due to an extremely high water table.
- Durant contended the stated reasons were not authorized by the town’s subdivision regulations and that the regulations were unlawfully vague for lack of specific standards.

## Issues

1. Whether the planning board had statutory and regulatory authority to deny the subdivision plan based on watercourse, sight-distance, and septic/high-water-table concerns.
2. Whether the subdivision regulations were impermissibly vague because they lacked detailed, specific standards.
3. Whether the denial was unreasonable or arbitrary because the board relied on its own investigation despite a state agency’s approval.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court and upheld the planning board’s denial.
- The court held the enabling statutes permitted broad subdivision regulation to protect health and safety, and the town’s regulations authorized denial where land could not be used safely for building purposes or could not safely support septic systems.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the regulations were sufficiently specific to notify applicants of the information needed to show the subdivision posed no health danger and could support septic systems.
- The court held the board’s decision was not arbitrary; the board could rely on its own investigation and the evidence developed through the hearing and site views, even in light of state agency approval.
- Because any one valid reason supported by the regulations and the record is sufficient, the denial was sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal subdivision-control authority is delegated by the State and must be exercised within the enabling statute and duly adopted local regulations.
- Under New Hampshire’s enabling scheme, subdivision regulations may be broadly framed to create conditions favorable to health and safety, and planning boards may exercise discretion within those regulatory purposes.
- Subdivision regulations are not invalid for lack of technical detail if they provide intelligible health-and-safety standards and reasonably inform applicants of required showings.
- A planning board may rely on its own site inspection, investigation, and record evidence and is not bound by another agency’s approval when acting under its own valid regulations.
- On judicial review, a denial will be upheld if at least one stated reason is authorized by regulation and supported by evidence, absent unreasonableness or unlawfulness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Dunbarton’s subdivision denial, holding that broad health-and-safety-based subdivision regulations can validly support disapproval, that such regulations need not contain exhaustive technical criteria to avoid vagueness, and that a planning board may make independent findings based on its own investigation even when a state agency has issued an approval.


Durant v. Town of Dunbarton, 430 A.2d 140 (N.H. 1981)