Opinion ID: 2084878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second & Third Prongs of Unnecessary Hardship

Text: As to the second prong of the unnecessary hardship test, the applicant must show that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property. Simplex, 145 N.H. at 732, 766 A.2d 713. The superior court found that, on the record, the ZBA could reasonably conclude that there was no substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and this specific property. The record supports the superior court's reasoning for this conclusion; i.e., that mixed uses are allowed in the adjoining district and the variance would not alter the composition of the neighborhood. As to the third prong, the applicant must show that the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Id. We have said that this prong of the unnecessary hardship test is coextensive with the first and third criteria for a use variance. See Chester Rod & Gun Club v. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. 577, 580, 883 A.2d 1034 (2005). For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the record supports the superior court's determination that the ZBA adequately considered this issue.