Court of Appeals Affirms Reversal of Zoning Board of Appeals Denial of a Dimensional Variance
In Crooked Lake Yacht Club v Emmet County, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court that reversed the denial of a variance to construct a patio within a setback. The yacht club “requested a waterfront setback variance to allow a ground patio to be located … within the 25-foot waterfront setback required by ordinance.” The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) denied the variance because it found that standards requiring there to be a “‘practical difficulty’ were not met.” The ZBA was reversed because it “either applied the wrong legal standard or made unreasonable findings.”
When reviewing a ZBA decision, a “court's review is limited to whether the decision is authorized by law and supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” A ZBA must make findings of fact that are “sufficiently detailed so that we can separate the facts it found from the law it applied, and that conclusory findings are inadequate because we need to know the path it has taken through the conflicting evidence, the testimony it has adopted, the standards followed and the reasoning used to reach its conclusion.” “The findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose the steps by which the [factfinder] reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue. The findings should be made at a level of specificity which will disclose to the reviewing [body] the choices made as between competing factual premises at the critical point that controls the ultimate conclusion of fact.”
The case is helpful to property owners because it overrides findings made by the ZBA. Specifically, the ZBA determined that a practical difficulty did not exist because the property owner chose the location of its building and that location limited the ability to construct the patio without encroaching into the setback. The Court of Appeals rejected that position because the building construction “predated the 25-feet zoning requirement.” It stands for the proposition that an owner cannot create a practical difficulty in complying with zoning requirements that were unknown at the time it decided how to design the building. “The standard would have been met [in favor of the property owner] because of the grandfathered building, location, lot size, and configuration.”
The Court of Appeals also reviewed whether substantial justice would be accomplished. In doing so, it examined “purpose of the waterfront setback” and held that the “ZBA did not make any findings that the variance would not further the purpose of the waterfront setback.” It essentially used the lack of findings specific to the purpose of the ordinance against the ZBA. This is important because is supports the requirements that the ZBA make complete findings and that the failure to do benefits the property owner.
I regularly evaluate zoning issues, both as an active area of my practice and because highest and best use questions in eminent domain require understanding zoning concepts. If you are involved in a zoning dispute, please feel free to contact me.