Craig F. Graziano v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines
16-1753
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Cecilia Kent sought a front-yard setback exception to build a single-family home 30 feet from 44th Street where the R-district required a 50-foot setback; the lot was diagonally encumbered by a 30-foot public storm-sewer easement.
- Kent also requested (and the board denied) a 10-foot variance for a parking setback and a 5-foot side-yard exception.
- City staff recommended granting the front-yard exception (but recommended denial of the other requests), citing shallow lot depth, the easement, the curvilinear street, and varied setbacks on the block.
- The Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5–2 to grant the 20-foot reduction to a 30-foot front setback, conditioned on compatible design and code compliance; a written decision largely adopted staff’s report.
- Neighbor Craig Graziano petitioned for certiorari in district court challenging (among other things) the board’s written findings and sufficiency of evidence; the district court affirmed and denied a stay request; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board made required written findings and met ordinance elements for an exception (feasible alternatives/practical difficulties) | Graziano: board failed to find that practical difficulties could not be overcome by any feasible alternative (e.g., smaller house); lacked calculations showing alternatives were infeasible | City/board: full proof of every alternative not required; staff and hearing discussion showed consideration of alternatives and practical difficulties | Court: substantial (not literal) compliance with written-findings requirement; sufficient evidence supports conclusion that feasible alternatives would not solve practical difficulties |
| Whether the exception was "in harmony with the essential character of the neighborhood" | Graziano: no evidence comparing scale of proposed house to other homes; board did not analyze relative scale | City/board: could rely on common-sense inferences, aerial photos, and staff opinion about curvilinear street and variable setbacks | Court: board considered street shape, lot depth, and varying setbacks; substantial evidence supports harmony finding |
| Whether the exception would "diminish or impair" surrounding property values | Graziano: no expert evidence; only speculative neighbor testimony and applicant’s hope | City/board: expert testimony not required; board may infer effects on values from aesthetics and neighborhood character; conditions imposed to protect aesthetics | Court: substantial evidence and commonsense inferences suffice; board substantially complied with findings and could rely on aesthetics-related evidence |
| Whether board procedures violated due process (insufficient notice/limited hearing time) | Graziano: notice and opportunity to be heard were inadequate | City/board: procedural regularity and notice provided; issues not raised to the board | Held: Claims waived for failure to present them before the board; appellate review declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorson v. Board of Supervisors, 90 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1958) (less formal tribunals reviewed without technical strictness)
- Bontrager Auto Serv., Inc. v. Iowa City Bd. of Adjustment, 748 N.W.2d 483 (Iowa 2008) (written-findings requirement; substantial compliance standard)
- Ackman v. Board of Adjustment, 596 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa 1999) (presumption of validity for board decisions)
- Bush v. Board of Trustees, 522 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Green v. Wilderness Ridge, L.L.C., 777 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2010) (interpretation of "feasible" emphasizing reasonableness and practicality)
- Helmke v. Board of Adjustment, 418 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 1988) (reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for board in close cases)
- Citizens Against the Lewis & Clark (Mowery) Landfill v. Pottawattamie County Bd. of Adjustment, 277 N.W.2d 921 (Iowa 1979) (purpose of written findings: enable meaningful appellate review)
- Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dept. of Transportation, 832 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2013) (scope of proper rule 1.904(2) motions)
- Homan v. Branstad, 887 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 2016) (effect of improper post-judgment motions on appeal deadline)
- Hanna v. State Liquor Control Comm’n, 179 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa 1970) (purpose of a stay to maintain the status quo)
- Christensen v. Iowa Dist. Court, 578 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa 1998) (mootness doctrine and appellate review)