Cited by

We conclude, however, that Malachy Glen provides little guidance here, as it addressed an “other method reasonably feasible” analysis in the context of the now-superseded hardship standard for area variances that we adopted in Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85 (2004), superseded by statute as stated in Harborside Associates v. Parade Residence Hotel, 162 N.H. 508, 513 (2011).

As the superior court noted, the ZBA found that the seven variances identified by the plaintiffs did not bear on their application because these variances were either granted when different variance criteria applied, see Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85 (2004), superseded by Laws 2009, 307:6, or the properties were distinguishable from the plaintiffs’ lot.

Hannaford also relies upon Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 92 (2004), which required zoning boards of adjustment to consider whether an applicant for area variances could achieve the same benefit by some other reasonably feasible method.

Then, in 2004, in Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 92 (2004), we held that the three-part Simplex test applied only to “use” variances — those that seek a use that is prohibited by the zoning ordinance — and we *558 established a different two-part analysis for “area” variances — those that authorize “deviations from restrictions which relate to a permitted use, rath

The legislature’s statement of intent indicates that the purpose of this provision was to “eliminate the separate ‘unnecessary hardship’ standard for ‘area’ variances” that we adopted in Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 92 (2004).

Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 90 (2004), superseded by Laws 2009, 309:1.

Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 89 (2004).

Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 89-90 (2004); see also U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act §§ 7.1,7.3 (rev. ed. 1926).

In Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 94 (2004), we stated that an applicant seeking an area variance must satisfy the following two requirements to prove unnecessary hardship: (1) an area variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property; and (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can

Unnecessary Hardship In Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 94 (2004), we stated that an applicant seeking an area variance must satisfy the following two requirements to establish hardship: (1) an area variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property; and (2) the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be a

Additionally, they stated that they requested rehearing on the following grounds: (1) “[t]he decision is unreasonable”; (2) “[t]he decision denies their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws”; (3) “[t]he decision is contrary to Boccia v. City of Portsmouth[, 151 N.H. 85 (2004)]”; and (4) “[t]he decision is contrary to the ordinance.” The ZBA denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to the superior court.

In Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 91-92 (2004), we distinguished between use and area variances when determining whether *78 an applicant established unnecessary hardship.

We further refined the unnecessary hardship standard in Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 90-92 (2004), distinguishing between use variances and area variances.

Boccia v. City of Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 92 (2004) (citations omitted).