2013-0317, Appeal of Town of Charlestown

space land. See RSA 79 - A:5, II (2012). The Town ’s s electmen approved the it owns in Charlestown receive current use tax assessment status as open three applications with the Town seeking to have each of three parcels of land Th e record sup ports the following. In April 2007, TransCanada filed

Hydro Northeast, Inc. (TransCanada). See RSA 79 - A:12, II (2012). We affirm. for reclassification of current use parcels owned by the taxpayer, TransCanada New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) dismissing its petition CONBOY, J. The Town of Charlestown (Town) appeals a decision of the

and orally), for TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. Ramsdell Law Firm, PLLC, of Concord (Michael D. Ramsdell on the brief

Charlestown. Joshua M. Pa n tesco on the brief, and Ms. Fulton orally), for the Town of Gardner, Fulton & Waugh, PLLC, of Lebanon (Adele M. Fulton and

(N ew Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals) APPEAL OF TOWN OF CH ARLESTOWN

No. 2013 - 317 Board of Tax and Land Appeals

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh. us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

decision. We, however, need address only one: whether the BTLA erred by On appeal, the Town cites a number of alleged errors in the BTLA’s

541:13. the evidence before [us], that such order is unjust or unreasonable.” RSA “except for errors of law, unless [we are] satisfied, by a clear preponderance of See i d.; see also RSA 541:13. We will not set aside or vacate a BTLA decision of the evidence that the BTLA’s decision was clearly unreasonable or unlawful. 161 N.H. 659, 661 ( p. 2 2011). To prevail, the Town must show b y a preponderance deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable. RSA 541:13; see Appeal of Wilson, appealed in accordance with RSA chapter 541). The BTLA’s findings of fact are RSA 541:13 (2007); RSA 71 - B:12 (2012) (providing BTLA decisions may be Our standard for review o f BTLA decisions is set forth by statute. See

this appeal followed. current use classification.” The Town’s motion to reconsider was denied, and from this policy and allow the Town to undo t he effect of its own approval of the in a specific current use classification,” and that it found “no reason to depart municipality’s decision to approve the placement of the land in current use or taxpayer who owns the land or the municipality wishes to challenge the its authority under RSA 79 - A:1 p. 2 2, II “to appeals where someone other than the and intent of the statute.” The BTLA explained that it has a policy of limiting invoke RSA 79 - A:12, II, the Town’s request went “beyond the plain meaning qualifies.” The BTLA further ruled that, to the extent the Town sought to discovers land, for which it has already granted current use status, no longer Town, not the [BTLA], to remove land from current use when the Town RSA chapter 79 - A (2012 & Supp. 2013) “places direct responsibility on the In a February 2013 decision, the BTLA dismissed the petition, ruling that

were not improperly classified as open space land. p. 2 2007 through 2012. TransCanada objected, arguing that the three parcels issue an order requiring the assessing officials to reassess taxes for tax years officials to reclassify the parcels. The Town further requested that the BTLA current use status of the three parcels and require the Town’s assessing chapter 79 - A. As a result, the T own requested that the BTLA revoke the electricity, they have been improperly classified as open space land under” RSA part of a development involving land use for the purpose of generating hydroelectric project. T he Town asserted t hat, “[b]ecause the three parcels are TransCanada, it discovered that the three parcels are part of the Bellows Falls course of preparing for a hearing on a separate abatement appeal filed by the three parcels pursuant to RSA 79 - A:12, II. The Town alleged that in the In November 2012, the Town petitioned the BTLA for reclassification of

their current use from tax year s p. 2 2007 through 2012. applications and assessed the land value of the three parcels on the basis of p. 3 3

(2012). appe al the municipality’s decision. See RSA 71 - B: 5,: 16 (2012); RSA 76:16 - a (2012). As the BTLA explained, in such a circumstance, the taxpayer could annual assess ment of the lan d to reflect the reclassification. See RSA 75:8 a municipality reclassifies land in such a circumstance, it may adjust the improperly placed in current use status in the first instance. In the event that nothing in the statute prevents a municipality from reclassifying land actual change in the use of the land, RSA 79 - A:7, I (2012); RSA 79 - A:7, I - a, a municipality can only impose a land use change tax when there ha s been an reclassif ying land that does not qualify for current use status. Thus, although Nothing in the statute, however, prohibit s a municipality from

use value absent a change in use of the land. R SA 79 - A:7, I - a. assessed at current use value cannot be assessed differently from the current of the statute makes clear that land classified as open space land which is change in land use occurs pursua nt to RSA 79 - A:7, IV, V, or VI.” The language assessed at curre nt use values shall be assessed at current use values until a RSA 79 - A:7, I - a p rovides that “[l]and which is classified as open space land and longer qualifies as current use. RSA 79 - A:7 (2012 & Supp. 201 p. 3 3). Specifically, is subject to a land use change tax when its use is changed to a use that no Builders, 165 N.H. at 103; see RSA 79 - A:5 (2012). Land in current use status taxed at its current use, rather than at its highest and best use.” Maplevale 165 N.H. 99, 103 (2013). “To effectuate this purpose, open space land may be space usage.” RSA 79 - A:1 (2012); see Ma plevale Builders v. Town of Danville, loss of open space due to property taxation at values incompatible with open public interest to encourage the preservation of open space” and “to prevent the RSA chapter 79 - A reflects the legislature’s determination tha t it is “in the

have said or add language the legislature did not see fit to include. Id. from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might ordinary meanings to the words used. See id. We interpret legislative intent We begin by examining the language of the statute and ascribe the plain and legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Id. of Wilson, 161 N.H. at 662. We are the final arbiter s of the intent of the interpretation. We review the BTLA’s statutory interpretation de novo. Appeal Resolution of this issue requires that we engage in statutory

parcels of land has not changed since 2007.” We disagree. because, in this case, “there is no dispute that TransCana da’s use of the three Town of any opportunity to correct an improper current use classification,” occurs.” (Emphasis omitted.) As a result, the BTLA’s decision deprived “the three parcels of land for any reason except when a change in the land use prohibits the Town from unilaterally revoking the current use status of the unilaterally. The Town maintains that RSA 79 - A:7, I - a (2012) “expressly interpreting RSA chapter 79 - A as allowing the Town to reclassify the parcels p. 4 4

DALIANIS, C.J.