Defining “Substantially Completed” in Equitable Zoning Waivers under RSA 674:33-a, I(a)

Introduction

This commentary examines the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s April 4, 2025 decision in Garry R. Lane & Marcia Lane v. City of Dover & Dana Brown & Sherri Brown. In this case the Court clarified the meaning of the phrase “substantially completed” in RSA 674:33-a, I(a)—the statute governing equitable waivers of zoning dimensional requirements. The dispute arose when the Lane plaintiffs challenged the Dover Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (ZBA’s) grant of an equitable waiver to their neighbors, the Browns, who had built a garage in violation of a 20-foot setback rule. The key issue on appeal was whether the garage was “substantially completed” at the time the violation was discovered, thereby satisfying the first statutory criterion for an equitable waiver.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the ZBA had ample evidence to conclude the garage was substantially completed on February 7, 2022—the date construction ceased under a stop-work order. Applying standard principles of statutory interpretation, the Court held that “substantially completed” should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning—“having largely, but not all, necessary components”—rather than importing the stricter “ready for intended use” contract-law definition. The Court rejected the Lanes’ argument that the definition from the statute of repose for construction defect claims (RSA 508:4-b) or general contract-law doctrines should govern. Instead, the Court tied the standard to the equitable purpose of RSA 674:33-a: protecting a landowner’s good-faith, detrimental reliance on a municipal official’s permitting error.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Dietz v. Town of Tuftonboro (171 N.H. 614 (2019)): Established that ZBA factual findings enjoy a presumption of reasonableness and are upheld unless there is no evidence supporting them or they contain legal error. Statutory interpretation questions are reviewed de novo.
AWL Power v. City of Rochester (148 N.H. 603 (2002)): Held that the test for “substantial construction” to vest zoning rights should not be borrowed from contract-law metrics (percentage of total cost or “ready for use”) but must focus on good-faith, detrimental reliance and the facts and circumstances of each case.
Vogel v. Vogel (137 N.H. 321 (1993)): A catchall citation indicating the Court’s practice of not discussing arguments that do not alter the outcome.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Plain‐meaning construction: Under Dietz, the Court first looked to the statutory text of RSA 674:33-a, I(a), which requires that a violation not be discovered until after a structure was “substantially completed.” The Court held that when viewed in context, these words bear their ordinary meaning.
Purpose alignment: RSA 674:33-a, I as a whole aims to grant relief to property owners who have innocently relied on municipal officials’ mistakes. Importing a stricter, contract-law definition would undermine the statute’s equitable purpose, just as AWL Power warned against importing contract doctrines in vested‐rights cases.
Application to the facts: The Browns completed site work, foundation, frost walls (inspected and approved), wall sheathing, and roof trusses, investing roughly $46,000—about 75% of the structure—before the stop‐work order. Those facts provided a reasonable basis for the ZBA to find substantial completion as of February 7, 2022.

Impact

This decision will guide future equitable‐waiver applications in New Hampshire by:

Confirming that “substantially completed” in RSA 674:33-a requires only that a structure have “largely” all necessary components at the time of discovery, not that it be fully ready for occupancy.
Limiting reliance on contract-law or repose‐statute definitions of substantial completion when interpreting equitable‐relief statutes.
Reinforcing the principle that equitable waivers protect landowners’ good-faith, detrimental reliance on municipal permitting errors.
Guiding ZBAs to evaluate the facts and circumstances—inspection records, expenditures, construction stage—when determining substantial completion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equitable Waiver: An exception to zoning rules allowing an existing violation to remain when a property owner innocently relied on a city official’s mistake and the structure was substantially completed before discovery.
Substantially Completed: In this context, having most major components in place—foundation, walls, roof structure—though final touches or interior work may remain.
Stop-Work Order: An official notice from a municipal building inspector halting construction due to a suspected ordinance violation.
Vested Rights: The doctrine that protects a developer’s right to complete a project under preexisting zoning rules when substantial construction has occurred in good faith.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Garry R. Lane v. City of Dover clarifies that “substantially completed” in RSA 674:33-a, I(a) is a flexible, common-sense standard tailored to the equitable waiver statute’s remedial purpose. By resisting the temptation to import a stricter contract-law definition, the Court preserved the statute’s goal of protecting innocent property owners who relied on municipal permitting errors. Going forward, zoning boards and courts will apply this ordinary-meaning test, focusing on whether a structure is largely built at the time its violation is discovered, thus ensuring that equitable waivers remain a practical remedy in appropriate cases.