RICHMOND — The state Supreme Court upheld earlier this month a lower court ruling that Richmond had legally merged 11 two-acre substandard lots into 4 four-acre lots and a six-acre lot on Beaver River Road.

In the opinion written by Justice Francis X. Flaherty filed on Nov. 16, the court found the town’s zoning amendment had not violated the land owner’s rights based on prior zoning as the amendment did not prevent him from developing the land. The plaintiffs — Delbonis Sand and Gravel Co. and Frank Delbonis — showed no evidence that they incurred expenses that would favor his interest to that of the town, Flaherty wrote.

“The mere fact that plaintiffs gained subdivision approval under the provisions of a particular zoning ordinance did not guarantee that those provisions would regulate that land forever or that the municipality was precluded from changing them,” Flaherty wrote.

“Delbonis still has five buildable lots on the east side of Beaver River Road as part of his subdivision that meet the zoning requirements for residential development,” he said.

Delbonis subdivided his land on both sides along Beaver River Road between 1986 and 1991 to create a development called Delbonis Estates. Final approval for the project was granted on Feb. 23, 1990. The plan called for the land on the east side of the road to be divided into 11 two-acre lots. At the time the subdivision was approved with the minimum lot size of two acres.

As a condition of the subdivision approval, Delbonis conveyed 19.34 acres to the town for recreational purposes and 1.25 acres for town purposes.

The tax assessor merged the lots in 1990 after the town amended its zoning ordinance, increasing the minimum lot size in the area from two acres to three acres.

Delbonis sued the town and several officials in 1999 in Washington County Superior Court asking for the court to invalidate the lot merger, and the zoning map to be redrawn to reflect the 11 two-acre lots.

In his opinion, Flaherty referred to the land Delbonis had given to the town as part of the subdivision approval:

“The plaintiffs argue that their obligation to convey the land to the town, with the amount of land to be conveyed based on the number of lots in the subdivision, was both substantial and was incurred in reliance on the approval of the subdivision.

“We disagree. The donation of land under the town ordinance — in effect at the time of the subdivision application — was a condition of approval. The plaintiffs presented no evidence that any expenses were incurred to prepare the land to be developed,” Flaherty wrote.

“The plaintiffs did only what they were obligated to do to secure the subdivision approval and nothing more,” he added, noting the landowners never applied for building permits or began construction.

Earlier requests for the town to issue building permits upon proper application and to enjoin the town from interfering with the development of the lots were thrown out by Washington County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A. Lanphear.