Rancourt v. City of Manchester
149 N.H. 51, 816 A.2d 1011 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish 'unnecessary hardship' for a zoning variance, an applicant must show that a zoning restriction interferes with a reasonable proposed use of the property, considering the property's unique setting. Hardship exists when special conditions of the land render the proposed use reasonable, not only when the ordinance prevents any reasonable use of the land.
Facts:
- Joseph and Meredith Gately owned a three-acre lot in a lower-density residential zoning district (R-1A) in Manchester.
- The lot was uniquely configured, with a rear portion that was considerably larger than the front, and was located in a country setting.
- The Gatelys purchased the property in 2000 after confirming the city's zoning ordinance at the time permitted them to stable horses on the lot.
- In May 2001, after contracting to build a home, the Gatelys sought to build a barn for two horses on a one-and-a-half-acre section in the rear of the lot.
- A thick wooded buffer existed around the area where the Gatelys proposed to build the barn and paddock.
- Between the Gatelys' purchase and their permit application, the city amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit livestock, including horses, in an R-1A zoning district.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Manchester denied Joseph and Meredith Gately's application for a permit to build a barn.
- The Gatelys applied to the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a variance.
- Following a hearing, the ZBA granted the variance.
- Bonnita Rancourt and other abutting landowners (plaintiffs) appealed the ZBA's decision to the Superior Court (a trial court).
- The Superior Court affirmed the ZBA's decision to grant the variance.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) then appealed the Superior Court's decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a recently enacted zoning ordinance that prohibits stabling horses impose an 'unnecessary hardship' on a property owner, thereby justifying a variance, when the owner's property has unique characteristics such as large size, a secluded rear portion, and a country setting that make the proposed use reasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Brock, C.J.
Yes. A zoning ordinance imposes an unnecessary hardship when it interferes with a reasonable use of the property, considering the property's unique setting. The court explicitly affirmed its move away from the prior, more restrictive test which required an owner to be deprived of all reasonable use of their land. Under the new standard articulated in Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington, the focus is on whether the property's 'special conditions'—its unique setting in its environment—render the proposed use 'reasonable.' Here, the Gatelys' lot was uniquely large, had a secluded rear portion, was in a country setting, and had a wooded buffer. These special conditions made the proposed use of stabling two horses reasonable. Therefore, the ordinance's prohibition of this reasonable use constituted an unnecessary hardship, justifying the grant of a variance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern, more landowner-friendly standard for zoning variances in New Hampshire established by Simplex. It redefines 'unnecessary hardship' from a standard where the land is rendered virtually useless to one where a reasonable use is prohibited due to the property's unique characteristics. This lowers the threshold for obtaining a variance and shifts the analysis toward the reasonableness of the proposed use in the context of the specific property, rather than the economic viability of the land under the existing zoning. The case clarifies that the statutory 'special conditions' requirement is met by showing the property has a 'unique setting' that makes the proposed use reasonable.
