Court Opinion

ID: 9530429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:46.308797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:06.823622
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 21.] 1. THE CIRCUIT COURT APPLIED THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW IN DETERMINING THAT THE BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WAS ILLEGAL.
[¶ 22.] I disagree with the majority opinion’s determination that the circuit court reviewed the Board’s record de novo, “thereby substituting its discretion for that of the Board.”
[¶ 23.] As we stated in the prior appeal, “the only question presented on certiorari is whether the lower tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.” Cole v. Bd. of Adj., City of Huron, 1999 SD 54, ¶ 10, 592 N.W.2d 175, 176 (citations omitted). Thus, the circuit court’s review is “confined to a review of the legality of the municipality’s zoning decision.” Hamerly v. City of Lennox Bd. of Adj., 1998 SD 43, ¶ 14, 578 N.W.2d 566, 569. Furthermore, “certiorari cannot be used to examine evidence for the purpose of determining the correctness of a finding, at least in the absence of fraud, or willful and arbitrary disregard of undisputed and indisputable proof wherein credibility of witnesses is not involved.” Willard v. Civil Service Bd. of Sioux Falls, 75 S.D. 297, 63 N.W.2d 801 (1954) (quoting State ex rel. Grey v. Circuit Court of Minnehaha County, 58 S.D. 152, 235 N.W. 509, 511 (1931)).
[¶ 24.] This record reflects that the circuit court, per Willard, properly limited its review to the legality of the variance granted to Casey’s and the Board’s compliance with SDCL 11-4-17(3). It ultimately concluded that the variance was illegally granted because there was no “existence of special conditions which constitute an unwarranted or unreasonable hardship.... ” In its rationale, the circuit court examined the Board’s finding of fact number 9 which provides that the vacant lots “evidences a lack of marketability of those lots for residential development; therefore use of such land for some commercial purpose may be necessary for the reasonable use of the property.” (emphasis added). The Board also determined that a refusal to grant a variance for commercial use of the property “could substantially impair its appropriate use or development” and the land “cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone.” These findings fail to establish necessity and merely provide for possibility, which is insufficient to satisfy the unnecessary hardship test set forth under SDCL 11 — 4— 17.5 The circuit court correctly deter*490mined that this finding conflicts with Casey’s admission that they purchased the property without intending to market it as residential property.6
[¶ 25.] The circuit court and this court must look at the evidence, as well as the sufficiency thereof, to ascertain whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction. See Graziano v. Bd. of Adj. of City of Des Moines, 323 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa 1982) (reviewing a certiorari action and reversing the board’s granting of a variance). Although the circuit court does not determine the “correctness of a finding,” the circuit court and this court must analyze the “correctness of a finding” when ascertaining whether the Board acted with “willful or arbitrary disregard of undisputed and indisputable proof.” Willard, 63 N.W.2d at 801. This is precisely what the circuit court did here.
[¶ 26.] Accordingly, there is an insufficient showing to support the claim that the circuit court used the wrong standard of review. In fact, the circuit court expressed and complied with the proper standard of review citing Willard, 63 N.W.2d at 801. See also Hamerly, 1998 SD 43, ¶ 14, 578 N.W.2d at 569 (stating that the circuit court’s review is “confined to a review of the legality of the municipality’s zoning decision.”). Therefore, the circuit court applied the correct standard of review in determining whether the variance was granted in compliance with SDCL 11-4-17 and the ordinances of the City of Huron.
[¶ 27.] Because the circuit court’s review was proper, the second issue must also be addressed.
[¶ 28.] 2. THE BOARD EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CASEY’S.
[¶ 29.] As indicated, the Board may grant a variance if it finds that “strict application” of the ordinance to the applicant would cause unnecessary hardship. We have previously defined “unnecessary hardship” to require a hardship that is “substantial and of compelling force, not merely for reasons of convenience or profit.” City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 N.W.2d 312, 314 (S.D.1980) (citing Deardorf v. Bd. of Adj. of Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 254 Iowa 380, 118 N.W.2d 78, 82 (1962)). More specifically, unnecessary hardship is demonstrated when:
(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 which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and
(3) the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Deardorf, 118 N.W.2d at 81 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).7 The burden was on the applicant to show all three elements. Greenawalt v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of City of Davenport, 345 N.W.2d 537, 542 (1984). “A failure to demonstrate one of them requires the [B]oard to deny the application.” Id. (citations omitted).

A. Reasonable Return

[¶ 30.] Casey’s was required to prove that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone. “An ordinance deprives a landowner of a reasonable return if all ‘productive use of the land’ is denied.” Id. (citation omitted). To show a deprivation of all “productive use of the land,” the applicant must show that the property has changed and the “uses for *491which is was originally zoned are no longer feasible.” Id. However, the granting of a variance will not be upheld when the only evidence presented is that the value of the applicant’s land has been “depreciated by the zoning regulations, or that a variance would permit him to maintain a more profitable use.” Id. (citation omitted).
[¶ 31.] Here, the Board, in granting the variance, found that the fact that the vacant lots were acquired by the county for delinquent taxes “evidences a lack of marketability of those lots for residential development.” As indicated, the Board concluded that the commercial use of the land “may be necessary for the reasonable use of the property.” It also determined that a refusal to grant a variance for commercial use of the property “could substantially impair its appropriate use or development” and the land “cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone.” Neither of the italicized words are sufficient to establish necessity.
[¶ 32.] “[T]he sole consideration is whether the land or structure is capable of being used in a reasonable manner which is consistent with the applicable zoning provisions.” 83 AmJur2d Zoning and Planning § 864 (1992). A review of the record discloses that Casey’s offered no evidence to show that the construction of single-family residences was not feasible. Nor did they present evidence that if the land were used to construct single-family residences, the return would be unreasonable or that they would be deprived of a productive use of the land. See Zimmerman v. O’Meara, 215 Iowa 1140, 245 N.W. 715, 718 (1932) (stating “[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate that an unnecessary hardship will be imposed” if applicant was denied the variance).
[¶33.] Further, Casey’s failed to show that the lots could not be sold to a person who would use the property in conformance with the zoning requirements. See Sheeley v. Levine, 147 A.D.2d 871, 538 N.Y.S.2d 93, 95 (1989) (upholding the granting of the variance where the property was (1) the subject of a multiple listing, (2) priced comparatively to similar structures, (3) shown to 41 people with no offers to purchase as a single-family home, and (4) evidence was presented that it would be “difficult and impractical” to maintain the property as a single-family home in accordance with the zoning regulations). The fact that the county, in 1970, bought the property at a tax sale is not indisputable evidence that the property is not marketable for residential purposes today. Some attempt at a better showing should have been offered.
[¶ 34.] In addressing the reasonable return of property, one court determined that neither depreciated value nor financial loss is an appropriate indicator in a variance case:
It does not appear from the record that the subject area is unfit for a conforming use, although such use may not be as inviting and the lots as desirable as some other lots in the use district. However, such depreciated value does not fall within the class of peculiar and exceptional circumstances necessary to sustain the granting of á use variance. If so, other property owners desiring to sell their property in a use zone at a premium for nonconforming purposes would frequently seek use variances, the granting of which would tend to destroy or greatly impair the whole system of zoning.
Brock v. Bd. of Zoning Adj., 571 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) (citation omitted). Furthermore, evidence of the “best use” of the property is “entitled to little or no weight in a variance case.” Bd. of Zoning Adj. v. Dauphin Upham Joint Venture, 688 So.2d 823, 825 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (citations omitted). The applicant’s own economic situation is also an improper basis for establishing unnecessary hardship. City of Madison, 288 N.W.2d at 314 (stating that “[economic disadvantages ... do not constitute ‘unnecessary hardship.’ ”).
*492[¶ 35.] Here, the evidence does not support a conclusion that Casey’s would endure “a loss of all beneficial use of the property” if the variance was denied. The record is void of any evidence establishing any reasons the property cannot be used in accordance with the zoning ordinances. Nor does the Board make adequate findings to support the same. For example, the Board found that the City Administrator had stated that the operation of a convenience store would not be an “inappropriate” use of the land. This finding affords little support to the determination of unnecessary hardship.
[¶ 36.] In a similar case, In re Appeal of McClure, 415 Pa. 285, 203 A.2d 534, 535 (1964), a variance was granted to construct a bank in an area zoned for single-family residences. The board concluded, on two occasions, that the land was not suitable for residential use. In reversing the board, the McClure court determined:
Such finding [that the land was not suitable for residential use] does not ... command the grant of a variance, even if the public interest would not thereby be adversely affected. As a general rule, if the land, as a practical matter, cannot be utilized for residential purposes, then the land should be rezoned by an appeal to the legislative body. Such rezoning cannot and must not be accomplished under the guise of a variance.
Id. at 537 (emphasis added). See also Graziano, 323 N.W.2d at 237 (stating “[t]he board cannot alter the zoning ordinances by granting variances.... The power to change the zoning restrictions belongs to the zoning commission and the city council.”).8 A variance can not be used as a pretense to change or modify a zoning ordinance; only the governing body has the power to do that. City of Madison, 288 N.W.2d at 314.
[¶ 37.] The majority opinion points out that the Board found:
That North Highway 37 is that part of the City of Huron affected by the variance application [and] is currently a state highway and presently subject to extensive commercial traffic and the granting of the said variance should not substantially increase noise, congestion, or otherwise disrupt the neighborhood[,]
and that the Board also made several findings referring to “public health, safety or welfare.” For example, the Board found that:
The granting of a variance will bring changes to the neighborhood, but these changes will not necessarily be injurious or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The above findings merely support the determination that the Board attempted to accomplish rezoning by granting a variance to Casey’s. As stated, zoning laws are designed to promote “public health, safety and welfare.” See SDCL 11-6-2. This is not the standard used to determine whether to grant a variance. In fact, because variances circumvent the underlying purpose of zoning ordinances, they should be granted sparingly and only when it is shown that the strict application of the zoning ordinances results in an unnecessary hardship.
[¶ 38.] The above findings further support a determination that the Board’s decision did not satisfy the second prong of the unnecessary hardship test: “the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself” (emphasis added). Clearly, this prong was not satisfied as these findings reflect that the Board determined that the zoning ordinance in place was unreasonable due to the location of Highway 37 and the growth of the city. Again, the Board can not accomplish through variance what can only be accomplished properly by modifying the zoning ordinances.
*493[¶ 39.] It appears obvious that Casey’s (and the City of Huron) should bite the bullet and petition to rezone this property rather than to attempt to shortcut the proper proceedings by variance. See Schrank v. Pennington County Bd. of Comm’r, 2000 SD 62, 610 N.W.2d 90 (providing that the County’s amendment to its zoning ordinances rendered a conditional use permit, previously determined to be illegally granted, to be valid). As stated in Schrank, the decision of how a community is to be zoned or rezoned “ ‘rests with the local legislative body.’ ” Id. ¶ 7 (quoting Tillo v. City of Sioux Falls, 82 S.D. 411, 415, 147 N.W.2d 128, 130 (1966) (other citation omitted)).
[¶ 40.] In light of the evidence presented to the Board, Casey’s attempted to accomplish, through a variance, what could only be accomplished by a modification in the zoning ordinances. Because the zoning laws are designed to promote public health, safety and welfare, the power to grant a variance should be exercised sparingly and in accordance with the public welfare. Therefore, “conditions personal to the land-owner are not relevant to whether a variance should be granted.” Hutchens v. St. Louis County, 848 S.W.2d 616, 619 (Mo.Ct.App.1993). In other words, a variance should not be granted simply because such a grant would permit the owner to obtain a greater profit from the sale or use of the property.
[¶ 41.] An applicant for a variance bears a great burden of proving that unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is denied. Casey’s failed to establish, before the Board, that it would be deprived of all productive use of the land if the variance was not granted. Therefore, the Board’s conclusion that the land could not yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed, is error and renders the grant of the variance illegal.
[¶ 42.] Since no showing of an unnecessary hardship was attempted or established, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and we should affirm.

. A variance can be granted only if the Board determines that it:
[1] will not be contrary to the public interest, [2] where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and [3] so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
SDCL 11-4-17(3). See also Huron City Ordinance 23.04.028 (adopting this three-prong test).
Issue 2 of this case, which was not reached by the majority opinion, is whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a variance to Casey’s. In determining that the circuit court did not err in reviewing the Board’s decision, I also conclude that the Board illegally granted the variance to Casey’s because there was no showing that the strict applica*490tion of the ordinance to Casey’s would cause unnecessary hardship.

. See Issue 2, infra, for an analysis of why the Board's grant of this variance was illegal.

. This standard is also incorporated into Huron City Ordinance 23.04.028.

. Casey’s withdrew their application for zoning change prior to applying for a variance.