The Town of Newington designated several areas of prime wetlands, six of which are located within the boundaries of the Pease Development Authority (PDA). However, in authorizing the PDA to accept title to the land of the former Pease Air Force Base, the legislature provided that PDA would do so on the State’s behalf. Thus, although the land is within the boundaries of the Town, it is controlled by the State. At issue in this case were two things: whether the PDA was bound by the Town’s designation of prime wetlands (thus limiting its ability to develop those areas) and whether the Town had standing to enforce the covenants in the deeds conveying title to the land from the United States Air Force to the PDA. The Town claimed the covenants require the PDA to comply with the prime wetlands designation.
As to the first issue, the Court noted that under RSA 12-G:13, I, “land use controls” of the Town of Newington did not apply to any of the PDA property. Although the Town argued that the designation of prime wetlands under RSA 485-A:15 is a state requirement rather than a local land use control, the Court did not agree. Instead, it clarified its earlier opinion in Green Crow Corp. v. New Ipswich , 157 N.H. 344 (2008) (summarized in the July/August 2008 issue of New Hampshire Town and City), and held that local land use controls include not only those in the planning and zoning statutes, but also other municipal authority to regulate and restrict certain land uses, wherever found in the statutes.
Finally, the Court held that the Town had no standing to enforce a covenant in deeds between the U.S. Air Force and the PDA. “One seeking to enforce a restriction in equity must have a standing entitling him to seek equitable relief.” In particular, restrictive covenants in deeds to land are construed narrowly. Only current beneficiaries of the covenant are entitled to seek enforcement, even if that enforcement would be beneficial to someone other than the actual beneficiary. Because the Town was not named as a beneficiary in the deeds, and because the deeds specifically provided that the United States government (not the Town) had authority to enforce the covenants, the Town had no standing to bring the case.