Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears restatement of variance 'hardship' test as 'unreasonable restriction'
Summary
SB 435 rewrites the fifth variance criterion in clearer language, replacing 'unnecessary hardship' with 'unreasonable restriction' and restating the established two‑part test to align statute with case law; NHMA supported the amendment as a clarification, not a substantive change.
Representative Walker introduced SB 435 to restate and clarify the statute governing zoning variances, particularly the fifth criterion commonly called the hardship test. The bill replaces the term "unnecessary hardship" with "unreasonable restriction" and restates the two‑part test in language intended to be clearer to applicants and volunteer zoning board members while aligning with existing case law.
Brady Deshais and NHMA testified in support of the senate‑amended wording as a clarification meant to reduce confusion and litigation risk, not to change the substance of the legal test. Committee members asked about the connotations of "unreasonable" and whether alternative wording (e.g., "unusual restriction") might be preferable; witnesses said the new phrasing reflects a legislative choice and that the statute remains bounded by existing case law and judicial review.
The committee closed the hearing after receiving mostly supportive remote testimony.
