Rochester Agricultural & Mechanical Association v. City of Rochester

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0538, Rochester Agricultural &
Mechanical Association v. City of Rochester, the court on
October 31, 2023, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The
plaintiff, Rochester Agricultural & Mechanical Association (RAMA), appeals a
decision of the Superior Court (Howard, J.) granting the motion to dismiss filed
by the defendant, City of Rochester (City). We reverse and remand.

RAMA’s pleadings allege the following facts. RAMA is a non-profit
organization with a stated purpose to improve and stimulate agricultural and
mechanical skill. In 1879, RAMA purchased a 68-acre parcel in Rochester (the
property) on which a fair has been held every year thereafter except “one year
during the World War, in 2017 due to financial reasons, and in 2020 due to the
pandemic.” Although the fair is “conducted during a limited period of time
during the year, the . . . Property has been used by and for the benefit of the
fair, RAMA’s purpose, and for other organizations during the year.” Activities
that have been conducted on the property include: “circuses, motorcycle and
automobile races and shows, Fourth of July celebrations, flea markets, bull
riding, motor vehicle crash derbies, organizational outings, antique shows,
Easter egg drops, plant sales, and concerts.”

This “non-fair use of the property has been essential in meeting RAMA’s
financial obligations” because the fair’s proceeds do not cover its expenses.
Moreover, such non-fair, “‘special events’ [use] has been consistent, continuous
and uninterrupted for as many years as the directors, shareholders and
citizens of Rochester can recall.”

Beginning in 2021, the City denied RAMA event permits for events that
had been conducted on the property in the past, including “a monster truck
show, rally cross, and a Christmas light show.” One such permit, for which
RAMA applied in December 2021, was for a motor vehicle event called Twisted
Metal, which RAMA had previously hosted in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

The City’s zoning administrator denied the permit in January 2022,
stating that “this use is not part of the Annual Fair that this property is
grandfathered for. This is an expansion of use and is not permitted.” RAMA
appealed that decision to the ZBA, which denied the appeal, stating, “The
allowed use on the property is grandfathered non-conforming fairground which
may not be expanded, enlarged, extended, or intensified without the
appropriate land use board approval.” RAMA filed a motion for rehearing,
which the ZBA denied on April 13, 2022.

Thereafter, RAMA filed this declaratory judgment action in superior
court. See RSA 491:22 (Supp. 2022). In addition to the foregoing allegations,
RAMA alleged that it has “vested rights to continue the non-fair activities which
have been conducted with the City’s knowledge and approval for well over 50
years and the City’s sudden reversal of its approval is a violation of established
constitutional, statutory and common law.” It further alleged that this “sudden
reversal . . . and resulting deprivation of necessary income is due in part to the
failure of discussions in which the City sought to acquire RAMA’s property at a
discounted price.” RAMA sought a declaration that it “has vested rights to
continue to hold non-fair events on its property similar to those events
conducted in the past” and an injunction prohibiting the City “from denying
permits for non-fair events that are similar to past non-fair events.”

The City moved to dismiss, arguing that the superior court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction because RAMA “failed to properly file an appeal
under RSA 677:4 within 30 days” of the ZBA’s denial of the motion for
rehearing on the Twisted Metal permit decision. The trial court granted the
motion, ruling that “RAMA cannot pursue its claims under RSA 491:22 for
failure to exhaust available remedies under RSA 677:4.” This appeal followed.

“Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must
determine whether the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s pleadings
sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted.” Stergiou v.
City of Dover, 175 N.H. 315, 317 (2022) (quotation omitted). “In making this
determination, the court would normally accept all facts pleaded by the
plaintiff as true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Id. (quotation omitted). “When, however, the motion to dismiss does not
challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s legal claim but, instead, raises certain
defenses, the trial court must look beyond the plaintiff’s unsubstantiated
allegations and determine, based on the facts, whether the plaintiff has
sufficiently demonstrated his right to claim relief.” Id. at 317-18 (quotation
omitted). “An assertion that a claim should be dismissed because the trial
court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim is one such defense. We will uphold a
trial court’s ruling in such a case unless its decision is not supported by the
evidence or is legally erroneous.” Id. at 318 (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

RAMA argues that the trial court “erroneously and narrowly construed
. . . [RAMA’s declaratory judgment action] to be a simple appeal of a ZBA denial
of one license,” while RAMA’s pleadings actually allege “much broader facts”
and request much broader relief. We agree. As detailed above, RAMA’s
pleadings allege that RAMA has “vested rights to continue [its] non-fair

2
activities” which, reasonably construed, refers to all such activities, not just
Twisted Metal. Citing denials of permits for other events in addition to Twisted
Metal, the pleadings allege a sudden reversal in the City’s treatment of RAMA’s
non-fair activities in general and intimate that this abrupt change of course
was motivated by the collapse in negotiations for the City’s purchase of the
property. Thus, as RAMA correctly asserts, this action “is not an RSA 677:4
appeal” but, rather, is a claim “for equitable relief from the City’s concerted
interference, since the breakdown in talks over the sale of RAMA’s land to the
City, with RAMA’s vested rights and unconstitutional limiting of . . . RAMA’s
vested uses to just the fair.”

Reversed and remanded.

MACDONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and
DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

3