Opinion ID: 2084878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Prong of Unnecessary Hardship

Text: As our cases since Simplex have emphasized, the first prong of the Simplex standard is the critical inquiry for determining whether unnecessary hardship has been established. Harrington, 152 N.H. at 80, 872 A.2d 990. A number of nondispositive factors are encompassed within this prong. Id. First, whether the zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowner's reasonable use of the property. Id. Next, whether the hardship is a result of the unique setting of the property. Id. at 81, 872 A.2d 990. Finally, whether the landowner's proposed use would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Id. The superior court focused upon the first two nondispositive factors. It found that Hill failed to present the ZBA with evidence of his property's unique setting in its environment, and instead presented evidence of his own personal financial hardship. We disagree. There was evidence before the ZBA that the property is unique in that it is a large residence that cannot reasonably be used as such consistent with the zoning ordinance. Hill submitted evidence that the property includes a historic building that, unlike the other buildings in the area, is used as a residence. He submitted a partial list of properties in the office district, and represented that his residence is one of the larger buildings. He testified that the house is not usable for a private family and ... the location of it and the size of it rule this out. Hill further testified that he is unable to sustain the property as his residence without the additional income. Based upon all the evidence, the ZBA concluded that the economics [of] trying to maintain it as a private home is [ sic ] understandable. The ZBA considered that similar large residences have been converted to office space consistent with the zoning ordinance, and that Hill's proposal is a reasonable compromise to keep it as a residence. Jeananne Farrar testified that there are exquisite old homes throughout downtown... that ... have been snapped up by professionals after the office zone was put into place, and evidence before the ZBA included the fact that the buildings on either side of the property are office buildings. Hill represented that if the ZBA did not grant the use variance, the property would be either office space or torn down. Based upon this evidence, the ZBA could reasonably find that although the property could be converted to office space consistent with the ordinance, the zoning restriction still interferes with Hill's reasonable use of the property as his residence. See Harrington, 152 N.H. at 80-81, 872 A.2d 990 (stating landowner not required to show he is deprived of all beneficial use of the land). Although Hill submitted minimal evidence of a reasonable return of his investment in the property, this is only one of the nondispositive factors that the ZBA must consider. See id. at 80, 872 A.2d 990 (reasonable use factor includes consideration of the landowner's ability to receive a reasonable return on his or her investment). Another factor is whether Hill's proposal would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. See id. at 81, 872 A.2d 990. To that extent, the superior court did not consider that the office district includes as permitted uses both offices and residences, and, thus, that a mixed office and residential use would not alter the character of this area. After review of the record, we acknowledge that this is a close case. In close cases, where some evidence in the record supports the ZBA's decision, the superior court must afford deference to the ZBA. See Garrison v. Town of Henniker, 154 N.H. 26, 29, 907 A.2d 948 (2006) (superior court's review in zoning cases is limited). The ZBA, composed of members of the community and having knowledge and understanding of the surrounding area, is in the best position to make decisions regarding use of the land. If the ZBA grants the variance and evidence in the record supports the decision, the superior court should defer to the ZBA's conclusion. See Ouellette v. Town of Kingston, 157 N.H. 604, 611, 956 A.2d 286 (2008). Here, the superior court did not give such deference to the local board. We thus conclude that the superior court erred in ruling that the record does not support the ZBA's finding of unnecessary hardship. Because Hill has the burden to prove the five criteria of the use variance test, we also address the Farrars' cross-appeal, in which they argue the superior court erred in concluding that the ZBA did not act unlawfully or unreasonably in finding Hill met his burden regarding the other two unnecessary hardship prongs and the remaining use variance criteria.