## Facts

- New Hampshire’s scenic-road statute (RSA 231:157–:158) permits municipalities to designate certain roads as “scenic” and restricts cutting specified trees or removing stone walls within the right-of-way without written consent from the planning board (or another designated municipal body).
- Town voters designated Libbee Road as a scenic road through warrant articles stating the purpose was to protect and enhance the town’s scenic beauty.
- In June 1998, landowners (trustees of the Webster Trust and another owner) sought planning board consent to cut 256 trees along Libbee Road to support planned subdivision-related road improvements and reclassification of Libbee Road from a class VI to a class V highway under a local cluster subdivision ordinance.
- After a hearing, the planning board denied the request on August 5, 1998.
- The original applicants later sold the land to a successor owner (trustee of Candia Rangeway Realty Trust).
- In March 1999, the successor owner submitted a revised plan seeking consent to cut about twenty-five trees on Libbee Road.
- The planning board denied the successor owner’s request on September 1, 1999.
- The superior court affirmed both denials; the successor owner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The consolidated appeals challenged the statute’s constitutionality (vagueness and unlawful delegation) and argued the planning board’s denials were arbitrary or unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether RSA 231:158 is unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied because it relies on “scenic beauty” and lacks more specific decision standards.
2. Whether RSA 231:157–:158 unlawfully delegates legislative power to local voters and municipal boards due to insufficient limiting standards.
3. Whether the planning board’s denials of consent to cut trees on a designated scenic road were legally sustainable under the applicable standard of review.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the superior court orders upholding the planning board’s denials.
- The court held RSA 231:158 is not unconstitutionally vague, facially or as applied.
- The court held the scenic-road statutory scheme is not an impermissible delegation of legislative power.
- Applying a deferential review standard, the court concluded the lower court’s affirmance of the denials was supported by the record and not legally erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is not void for vagueness if it provides adequate notice of the regulated conduct and sufficient guidance to prevent standardless enforcement.
- RSA 231:158 provides adequate notice by identifying the regulated acts (cutting trees of specified size or removing stone walls within the right-of-way of a designated scenic road) and by requiring written municipal consent before undertaking those acts.
- A law is not necessarily vague merely because it does not precisely state all standards an administrative board will apply in exercising discretion.
- The statutory scheme may be construed in context to supply governing standards; here, scenic-road designation and related local warrant articles gave notice that decisions should protect scenic beauty.
- Delegation to municipalities is permissible where the legislature identifies the subject matter and channels local discretion through statutory purpose and defined scope of regulation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New Hampshire’s scenic-road statute against vagueness and nondelegation challenges and affirmed the planning board’s denials of requests to cut trees on a road locally designated as scenic, concluding the statutory scheme gave adequate notice and contained sufficient limits on municipal discretion.


Webster v. Town of Candia, 146 N.H. 430, 778 A.2d 402 (N.H. 2001)