This case called upon the Court to interpret the City of Portsmouth zoning ordinance with regard to the regulation of outdoor storage as it applies to a car dealership. The city zoning ordinance prohibits outdoor storage within 200 feet of a residential or mixed residential district. The car dealership is abutted on three sides by residential districts and uses property within 200 feet from abutting residential properties to place vehicles being offer for sale. The city code enforcement officer reasoned that the vehicles constituted “outdoor storage” and as such, the placement of the cars was a violation of the zoning ordinance. In an appeal of an administrative decision, the ZBA supported the code enforcement officer’s decision.
The ordinance defines “outdoor storage” as the “storage of materials on a lot…” The plaintiff argued that the cars did not constitute “materials” and, as a result, he was not subject to the setback requirements applicable to outdoor storage areas. The city argued that motor vehicles fall within the definition of materials because they are the “materials” necessary for the selling of motor vehicles and that “materials” includes the “tools or the apparatus for the performance of a given task.”
Noting that the term “materials” was not defined in the city zoning ordinance, the Court turned to the dictionary definition of the word to conclude that motor vehicles are not “materials” because they are not “basic matter” from which the “whole or the greater part of something physical…is made.” The Court found support for its interpretation in other sections of the zoning ordinance, which distinguishes “material” from “vehicles.” The Court concluded that vehicles are not “materials” for purposes of meeting the requirement of the 200-foot buffer zone for outdoor storage. The determination of the city code enforcement officer that the car dealership was in violation of the city zoning ordinance was overturned.
Two of the five justices dissented. According to the dissent, the dictionary definition of the term “materials” could also be used to support the city’s argument that the vehicles do fall within the outdoor storage regulation of the zoning ordinance. With respect to the other references in the zoning ordinance regarding “materials” that the majority used to support its conclusion, the dissent said the references were ambiguous and should not be used. For these reasons, the dissenters argued that greater deference should be given to the ZBA’s interpretation of the ordinance. Pointing out that the purposes of the zoning ordinance sections at issue are intended to serve the promotion of aesthetics and safety, and, if nothing else, to prevent unsightly collections of material in offensive proximity to single family homes, the dissenters said the ZBA’s decision is an appropriate application of the ordinance and should have been upheld.