955 N.W.2d 812
Iowa2021Background
- Plaintiffs Gregory and Lea Ann Saul own an R-3 lakeshore lot in unincorporated Cerro Gordo County subject to a 6-foot side-yard setback.
- The Sauls had a pergola built that sits 21 inches from the property line; it was constructed without a permit and they applied for a variance after being notified of the violation.
- Their variance application admitted the pergola was already installed, did not claim unique property circumstances, and provided no evidence that compliance would deny a reasonable return.
- The County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved the area variance (and waived the penalty) after a hearing with minimal evidence; no neighbors formally complained.
- The neighboring landowner (Earley Trust) sought certiorari in district court; the district court and Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the board.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review, held the board acted illegally for failing to apply the Deardorf unnecessary-hardship standard, and reversed and remanded to annul the variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for area vs use variances | Area variances require a lesser showing than use variances | Deardorf three-part "unnecessary hardship" test applies equally | Court rejected a separate, lesser standard for area variances and applied Deardorf uniformly |
| Legality of the board's grant of variance for pergola 21" from property line | Variance should be granted because pergola already built, is aesthetic/shading improvement, and no neighbor complaints | Applicants failed to prove unnecessary hardship (no evidence of denial of reasonable return or uniqueness) | Board acted illegally; Sauls failed to meet Deardorf's requirements (no showing of inability to yield reasonable return; no unique circumstances) |
| Relevance of good-faith construction/expense after-the-fact | Good-faith construction and expenditure justify granting the variance | Equitable considerations are immaterial to statutory variance criteria | Court held equitable/good-faith arguments irrelevant; prior construction does not satisfy statutory hardship requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Deardorf v. Bd. of Adjustment, 254 Iowa 380 (established three-part unnecessary-hardship test for variances)
- Graziano v. Bd. of Adjustment, 323 N.W.2d 233 (reiterated burden on applicant to prove unnecessary hardship)
- Greenawalt v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 345 N.W.2d 537 (applied Deardorf conjunctive test; equitable considerations insufficient)
- Bd. of Adjustment v. Ruble, 193 N.W.2d 497 (construction in violation of ordinance and good-faith ignorance do not create unique hardship)
- City of Johnston v. Christenson, 718 N.W.2d 290 (distinguished use vs area variance but did not adopt a different Iowa standard)