943 N.W.2d 330
S.D.2020Background
- Hodne Homes bought Lot 1 in an LP-3 zoned area and proposed a 5,760 sq ft, 16-ft side-wall building to store/display boats; the proposal violated LP-3 size, height, and setback rules.
- Hodne applied for a variance (to relax side/rear setbacks) and a conditional-use permit (CUP) (to exceed size/height limits); most adjoining owners consented except Karen Dunham (owner of abutting Lot 2).
- Lake County Planning Board recommended approval; the Board of Adjustment held a hearing, adopted staff findings, required a drainage plan, and approved both the variance and the CUP.
- Dunham petitioned for a writ of certiorari in circuit court challenging both approvals; Hodne Homes was joined; the circuit court denied the writ under a deferential certiorari standard.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial as to the CUP but reversed the variance approval and remanded the variance for further proceedings because the Board failed to apply the Ordinance’s required “special conditions” analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dunham) | Defendant's Argument (Board / Hodne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had authority under the Ordinance to grant the variance relaxing setbacks | Dunham: No; Hodne failed to show property had peculiar conditions or undue hardship—variance sought because of Hodne’s building choice | Board/Hodne: Variance power broad under Ordinance; staff findings supported relief | Reversed as to variance: Board exceeded authority by not meaningfully applying the Ordinance’s "special conditions" (second prong) even though it found public-interest prong satisfied; remanded for proper findings |
| Whether the Board had authority to grant a CUP to exceed LP-3 size/height limits | Dunham: CUP cannot be used to increase size restrictions; such a change is not a "conditional use" | Board/Hodne: Ordinance and state law do not prohibit using a CUP to modify size; Section 1105 allows conditional uses if compatible | Affirmed as to CUP: Board had authority and made required findings under Section 504; denial of certiorari relief affirmed |
| Whether Section 1105 and the CUP procedure violate due process/vagueness | Dunham: Section 1105’s language is vague and leaves arbitrary discretion to the Board | Board: Section 504 provides specific criteria; process is not vague | Rejected: Ordinance includes Section 504 criteria; Dunham failed to overcome presumption of validity |
| Whether Board committed procedural errors (insufficient findings, adoption of staff findings, ex parte contacts, recording votes) | Dunham: Board failed to make adequate individualized findings, improperly adopted staff findings, staff had ex parte contacts, and votes weren’t recorded | Board: Minutes and staff input are permissible; no evidence of bias or prejudice; procedural defects were not shown to be prejudicial | Rejected: No substantial prejudice shown; certiorari will not correct insubstantial/technical defects; reliance on staff recommendations alone was not shown to be improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wedel v. Beadle Cty. Comm’n, 884 N.W.2d 755 (2016 S.D. 59) (limits certiorari review to whether board had jurisdiction and pursued authority in a regular manner)
- Hines v. Bd. of Adjustment of Miller, 675 N.W.2d 231 (2004 S.D. 13) (two-part variance test: public-interest prong and special-conditions prong; certiorari cannot reweigh evidence)
- Cole v. Bd. of Adjustment of Huron (Cole I), 592 N.W.2d 175 (1999 S.D. 54) (certiorari review is limited; courts do not retry evidence)
- Cole v. Bd. of Adjustment of Huron (Cole II), 616 N.W.2d 483 (2000 S.D. 119) (broad discretion afforded boards in zoning decisions)
- In re Conditional Use Permit No. 13-08, 855 N.W.2d 836 (2014 S.D. 75) (ordinances presumed valid; challenge requires showing arbitrariness or unconstitutional vagueness)
- Adolph v. Grant Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 891 N.W.2d 377 (2017 S.D. 5) (certiorari will not remedy insubstantial procedural errors absent prejudice)