Page 1: Case Overview of Claridge v. N.H. Wetlands BD

1. Case Details

• Name: Claridge v. N.H. Wetlands BD

• Citation: 485 A.2d 287, 125 N.H. 745 (1984)

• Date of Decision: 1984

2. Facts Leading to the Lawsuit

• In 1971, the Claridges purchased a property in Rye, NH to build a retirement home, acquiring the title in 1975.

• A sale attempt in 1977 failed due to denial of a fill permit by the wetlands board.

• In 1979, their application for a fill permit to install a septic tank and leach field was denied, with regulations requiring a 75 feet setback from surface waters.

• The property, bordering a tidal creek, mainly comprises salt marsh and woods.

• A Master found potential value of over $50,000 if building regulations were satisfied, noting various potential uses of the land still had economic value.

• The court upheld the wetlands board's decision, ruling it was not unjust or unreasonable and did not constitute a taking without compensation.

• The Claridges contended they were deprived of economic benefits from the regulated land.

3. Legal Issues

• Key Question: Did the wetlands board’s decision to deny a fill permit exceed police power, constituting a taking without compensation?

4. Court Decision

• The court affirmed the fill permit denial, ruling no compensable taking occurred based on potential ecological harm, limited property use, and the plaintiffs' knowledge of regulations at purchase.

• Dissenting Opinion: C.J. King acknowledged the limited use of the property was insufficient concerning the Claridges' original intent to build a home, questioning its economic viability.

Page 2: Legal Principles and Reasoning

5. Rule

• The case highlights whether the plaintiffs' burden is unreasonably onerous.

• Other wetland property owners face similar burdens, emphasizing state policy on wetland protection.

• The court concluded that given the existing regulations and the plaintiffs’ awareness at purchase, no taking occurred as the burden was not unreasonable.

6. Reasoning

• New Hampshire had several statutes regarding wetland protection and septic system approvals pre-purchase.

• 1967 Statutes: Permit requirements were established for sewage systems and for dredging/filling adjacent to surface waters.

• 1969 Developments: The WSPCC could reject septic system applications in high concentration areas, transferring tidal water fill permit authority to the Water Resources Board.

• The Claridges had constructive and actual notice of regulatory requirements; the regulations showed a strong public policy against wetland filling.

• Denial of the permit preserved wetland nutrients and prevented potential risks to public welfare.

• Regulations aimed at protecting wetlands entail sacrifices for landowners, affirming that the plaintiffs face a more acute burden than the general public.

Page 3: Significance of the Case

7. Importance in Planning

• This case is significant for environmental planning, emphasizing the need to protect local ecosystems.

• It prioritizes the long-term effects of development over potential profits.

• Establishes precedent where denial of fill permits does not constitute a taking, reinforcing environmental regulations in land use.