Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington
145 N.H. 727, 766 A.2d 713, 2001 N.H. LEXIS 15 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a zoning variance, the 'unnecessary hardship' standard does not require a showing that the land can have no reasonable use. Instead, unnecessary hardship is established if a zoning restriction interferes with a landowner's reasonable use of the property, considering its unique setting; the restriction bears no fair and substantial relation to the ordinance's purpose; and the variance would not injure public or private rights.
Facts:
- Simplex Technologies, Inc. (Simplex) owns a ninety-two-acre property in Newington, where it has operated a manufacturing facility for over thirty years.
- The Simplex property is located in an industrial zoning district, but it abuts Woodbury Avenue, which serves as a boundary with a commercial zoning district.
- The area across Woodbury Avenue from Simplex, once industrial, is now entirely commercial, containing two shopping malls.
- Several other commercial businesses, including a mini-mall, a car dealership, and a retail store, are also located on the same side of Woodbury Avenue as Simplex, in close proximity to its property.
- Some non-industrial entities, such as a bank and a school, operate within the industrial zone itself.
- Simplex sought to develop a 6.2-acre portion of its property fronting Woodbury Avenue for commercial use, specifically a Barnes & Noble bookstore and a family restaurant.
Procedural Posture:
- Simplex Technologies, Inc. applied to the Town of Newington Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for use and area variances.
- The ZBA denied Simplex's request, finding it met none of the five required criteria.
- Simplex, the plaintiff, appealed the ZBA's decision to the Superior Court (a state trial court).
- The Superior Court affirmed the ZBA's decision, ruling that Simplex had not met the 'unnecessary hardship' criterion for a variance.
- Simplex, now the appellant, 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 the traditional test for 'unnecessary hardship' for a zoning variance, which requires a landowner to prove that a zoning ordinance prevents them from making any reasonable use of their land, impose a standard that is too restrictive in light of constitutional property rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Nadeau, J.
Yes, the traditional definition of unnecessary hardship has become too restrictive and fails to adequately protect constitutional property rights. To establish unnecessary hardship for a zoning variance, an applicant must now show that: (1) a zoning restriction interferes with the reasonable use of their property, considering its unique setting; (2) no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. The court reasoned that its previous standard, requiring proof that an owner could make 'no reasonable use of the land,' was so stringent that it approached a constitutional takings analysis and was inconsistent with the purpose of variances, which is to provide a speedy remedy where special conditions exist. The court observed that this restrictive test was also at odds with prior case law and the principle that zoning must be reasonable and reflect the current character of neighborhoods.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in New Hampshire's land use law by liberalizing the standard for obtaining a zoning variance. By replacing the nearly impossible-to-meet 'no reasonable use' test with a more flexible three-part standard, the court makes it substantially easier for property owners to challenge zoning restrictions. This change empowers landowners to argue for variances based on the reasonableness of their proposed use in the context of the surrounding neighborhood, rather than having to prove their property is economically worthless under the current zoning. The new standard will likely lead to more variance applications being granted and may force municipalities to be more accommodating of development that is consistent with the evolving character of a neighborhood, even if it conflicts with outdated zoning maps.
