## Facts

- Joseph and Meredith Gately owned an approximately three-acre lot in Manchester, New Hampshire, in an R‑1A residential zoning district.
- The lot’s configuration was atypical, with a comparatively small frontage and a substantially larger rear area.
- After purchase, the city amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit livestock, including horses, in the R‑1A district.
- The Gatelys sought a permit to build a barn and stable two horses on about 1.5 acres in the rear portion of the lot; the city denied the permit due to the livestock ban.
- The Gatelys applied to the Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a variance from the ordinance; after a public hearing, the ZBA granted the variance.
- Bonnita Rancourt and other abutters appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the ZBA’s decision.
- The abutters appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, contesting only whether the variance satisfied the statutory “unnecessary hardship” requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether the ZBA lawfully found “unnecessary hardship” under RSA 674:33, I(b) as defined by the three-part test for hardship adopted in Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order upholding the ZBA’s grant of the variance.
- Applying the Simplex test, the court held the record supported the ZBA’s finding of unnecessary hardship.
- The court deferred to the ZBA’s factual findings as prima facie lawful and reasonable and found no legal error in the superior court’s affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning variance under RSA 674:33, I(b) requires satisfaction of four statutory conditions; where contested, “unnecessary hardship” is evaluated under the Simplex three-part test.
- To establish “unnecessary hardship,” the landowner must show:
  - the restriction, as applied, interferes with reasonable use of the property given its unique setting;
  - there is no fair and substantial relationship between the ordinance’s general purposes and the specific restriction on the property; and
  - the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
- Judicial review is limited: a zoning board’s factual findings are treated as prima facie lawful and reasonable, and the board’s decision is not set aside absent legal error or a showing that it is unreasonable on the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a variance allowing construction of a barn and the keeping of two horses on a uniquely configured, large residential lot, concluding that the livestock ban created an unnecessary hardship under the Simplex standard and that the ZBA’s decision was supported by the evidence and not legally erroneous.


Rancourt v. City of Manchester, 816 A.2d 1011 (N.H. 2003)