Facts
- Simplex Technologies, Inc. owned a 92-acre industrial-zoned parcel in Newington, New Hampshire, used for manufacturing for decades.
- The parcel lay between the Piscataqua River and Woodbury Avenue, which functioned as a boundary between industrial and commercial zoning districts.
- Properties along and across Woodbury Avenue had been rezoned or developed for commercial uses, including shopping malls and other retail businesses.
- Simplex sought to commercially develop 6.2 acres of its frontage along Woodbury Avenue, a use not permitted in the industrial zone.
- Simplex applied to the Town of Newington Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a use variance; the ZBA denied the request.
- The superior court affirmed the denial, and Simplex appealed.
Issues
- What legal standard governs “unnecessary hardship” for a use variance under New Hampshire law.
- Whether the existing “unnecessary hardship” formulation was unlawfully restrictive and should be reformulated.
- Whether the ZBA and trial court applied the correct hardship standard to Simplex’s variance request.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s judgment affirming the ZBA’s denial.
- The court rejected the prior “unnecessary hardship” formulation as too restrictive and adopted a new, more flexible three-part test.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of the variance application under the new standard, leaving fact-finding to the ZBA.
Legal Principles
-
“Unnecessary hardship” for a use variance is shown by proof:
- that the restriction, as applied, interferes with the landowner’s reasonable use of the property, considering the property’s unique setting in its environment;
- that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the ordinance’s general purposes and the specific restriction on the property; and
- that the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
-
The hardship inquiry is not limited to near-total deprivation of value or a threshold comparable to a constitutional taking.
-
Variances function as a statutory safety valve and must be assessed in light of the parcel’s actual context and the ordinance’s purposes as applied.
Conclusion
The court replaced New Hampshire’s prior, highly restrictive use-variance hardship doctrine with a three-part standard focused on reasonable use in the property’s unique setting, lack of a fair and substantial relationship to zoning purposes, and absence of injury to others, and it remanded for renewed review under that standard.