Earley v Board of Adjustment Cerro Gordo County, 2021 WL 744513 (Iowa February 26, 2021)
This very interesting case from the Iowa Supreme Court discusses the standards for area variances, and whether those are different from other types of variance requests. The court concludes that the same restrictive standards would apply and, from my perspective, this is ultimately the correct answer here in Tennessee as well.
This is a fairly typical variance request case. The property owners, Gregory and Lea Ann Saul, hired a contractor to build a pergola on the side of their home, covering a patio. The property is located in a single-family residential district, with a required 6 foot side yard setback. The pergola and patio are only 21 inches from the property line.
After construction, the local zoning officials informed the owners of the violation, a permit was applied for, denied, and a variance requested. Again, in typical fashion, the property owners were unable to demonstrate any unnecessary hardship. While the precise requirements for variance under Iowa law are different from those here in Tennessee, there was no proof of any unique physical feature or any other variance requirement.
Nevertheless, also a tradition in zoning variance cases, the members of the zoning board felt that the pergola “looked nice” and unanimously approved the variance, waving the penalty for building the pergola without a permit.
As you might expect, the neighboring property owner, Ms. Earley, appealed pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari. The local court upheld the decision of the zoning board, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. The Iowa Supreme Court granted the application for further review.
First, the Iowa Supreme Court gives a nice summary of rules of thumb for variances. Variances should be granted sparingly and with great caution or in exceptional instances only. The board cannot amend or set aside the zoning ordinance under the guise of a variance. If an applicant does not make the required unnecessary hardship showing, granting a variance is an illegal act by the board.
Second, I’d like to emphasize that the standards for variances in Iowa, at least statutorily, are quite different from those here in Tennessee. The statute at issue in this case, Iowa Code §335.15 (3) provides:
To authorize upon appeal, in specific cases, such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
This language is verbatim the variance provision found in the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act promulgated by a blue ribbon committee working with Herbert Hoover’s Department of Commerce in the middle 20s, almost 100 years ago. As I have written elsewhere, the problem with this language is that it offers no real standards by which to judge whether an application for a variance should be granted or not. A number of courts, including the Iowa Supreme Court, have adopted an approach suggested by the New York Court of Appeals in Otto v Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 24 NE 2d 851, 853 (1939). The New York Court articulated a three-part test requiring the applicant to show:
(1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone;
(2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood; and
(3) the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Of course, as you read those requirements, it’s clear that the New York high court was considering a use variance rather than a bulk or area variance, the subject of the Iowa case. Further, while the second and third conditions make reasonable sense and in fact are to a large extent mirrored by the more specific Bettman model variance provision which we have here in Tennessee, the first criterion, asking if a reasonable return is possible, seems to me largely irrelevant. From my perspective, if there is some unusual physical feature of the property which prevents the applicant from utilizing some aspect of his property in a manner similar to what would be permitted on other properties in the same general area, then a variance should be granted, regardless of whether there is a reasonable return. That issue is a continuing debate in Tennessee as in other jurisdictions.
The Iowa Supreme Court made clear that it had adopted the New York standard in Deardorff v Board of Adjustment, 254 Iowa 380, 383-84, 118 N.W. 2d 78, 80 (1962). In that case, a variance which was granted to allow a greater height then permitted under the applicable zoning regulations was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court, concluding that there was no demonstration of any unique physical feature justifying the relaxation of their zoning regulations in favor of that particular property owner.
In this case, the court observes that the Court of Appeals below concluded that a different standard should apply in the case of an area variance, that is, where some bulk regulation such as a side yard requirement, is the subject of the request. The court first reviewed the distinction between use variances and area variances:
A use variance permits the use of land for purposes other than those prescribed by the zoning ordinance, and is based on the standard of unnecessary hardship.” On the other hand, an area variance does not involve a use prohibited by the ordinance, but concerns a deviation from specific requirements such as height limitations, setback lines, size regulations and the like.
Relying on a law review article, N. Williams Hines, Difficulties Standard for Area Variances, 102 Iowa Law Review Online 365, 366 (2018), which noted that “notwithstanding the distinctly different purposes served by these two types of zoning variances, two-thirds of US states, including Iowa, apply the same strict requirements for granting them both,” the court found that to be a correct statement of the law.
The court felt that the rule of stare decisis required consistency in application of the standard. This is particularly true because the requirements for obtaining a variance are set by statute. The legislature presumably was aware of the court’s interpretation of the statute, and if the legislature had wanted to change that interpretation, it had only to change the language of the statute. After almost 60 years, no such amendment to the statutory provision had been made.
After clarifying the standards to be applied, the court applied those standards to this case. The application of the standards is largely immaterial to us here in Tennessee. However one interesting aspect, which comes up time and time again, is the fact that the property owners argued that their good faith completion of the illegal pergola was a factor which should augur in favor of allowing the variance to stand. The Supreme Court of Iowa indicated that it had repeatedly rejected these types of equitable considerations as immaterial to the statutory grounds authorizing a variance. The same is, and should be, the rule here in Tennessee.
The court reversed the decision granting the variance. While the standards for variances in Iowa are very different from those here in most jurisdictions in Tennessee, the case is highly instructive. The same kinds of issues arise time and time again before not only the courts in Iowa and Tennessee, but I dare say, across the vast majority states in the country as a whole.
As I finished this entry, I remembered an old case of mine, JD Biggs v Metro Board of Zoning Appeals, decided in the early 80s. In that case, it was a carport which was constructed with a permit, but the permit showed the required 5 foot side yard. As built, the carport was within 2 feet of the property line. The zoning board turned down the application for a variance, the trial court affirmed, and although I no longer have a copy of the case, I believe that the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed as well. I will try to upload a copy of the trial court opinion in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment