Limiting Variance Grants: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory and Ordinance Requirements

Introduction

In the case of GREG DECRAMER and PATRICIA DECRAMER v. ROD DORALE and MCCOOK COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (2025 S.D. 5), the Supreme Court of South Dakota addressed an appeal arising from a dispute over the granting of a variance after a building violation concerning setback requirements. The petitioners, the DeCramers, contested the decision by the Board of Adjustment to grant Rod Dorale permission to construct a house with a setback significantly less than the nine‐foot minimum mandated by county ordinance. The key issues focus on whether the Board exceeded its statutory authority by approving a variance without the required written findings and whether the necessary “special conditions” and evidence of “unnecessary hardship” were established. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of local zoning regulations, restrictive covenants, and statutory standards articulated in SDCL 11-2-53(2).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s ruling that had previously upheld the variance granted by the McCook County Board of Adjustment. The core of the Court’s decision rested on the Board’s failure to comply with the explicit mandates of both SDCL 11-2-53(2) and the county’s zoning ordinance. Specifically, the Board did not create the requisite written findings confirming that all statutory and regulatory criteria – particularly those relating to the identification of “special conditions” necessary to justify a variance – were satisfied. The judgment clarified that Dorale’s after-the-fact request for a variance, based in part on assertions regarding unconventional setbacks in restrictive covenants, could not override the clear statutory and regulatory requirements. Consequently, the variance granted to Dorale was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several significant precedents that informed the Court's decision:

Stockwell v. McCook Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs – This case was cited for the standard that a board's decision should only be disturbed if it either lacked jurisdiction, failed to follow proper procedures, or committed an act forbidden by law. The current decision applies this reasoning to scrutinize whether the Board’s written findings were compliant with statutory requirements.
Ehlebracht v. Deuel Cnty. Plan. Comm'n – Quoted regarding the limited judicial role in re-examining a board’s factual findings, the decision reinforces that judicial review is confined to legal errors rather than factual determinations.
Hines v. Bd. of Adjustment of Miller – This precedent was instrumental in emphasizing that when the statutory text is clear, the role of the court is to adopt its plain meaning.
Dunham v. Lake Cnty. Comm'n – This decision provided guidance on the necessity for a board’s findings to meaningfully address the special conditions required by law when granting a variance.

The utilization of these cases helped establish the requirement that any board of adjustment must strictly adhere to statutory mandates when granting relief via variances and that judicial review is appropriate when these procedural safeguards are neglected.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centers on the interpretation of SDCL 11-2-53(2) and the county ordinance governing variance requests. The statute requires that a variance be permitted only when a literal enforcement of the ordinance would impose an “unnecessary hardship” as well as when “special conditions” exist that justify deviating from the strict wording of the law. The Court identified several key points in its analysis:

Requirement for Written Findings: The Board was obligated to produce written determinations addressing specific criteria outlined in the ordinance. The absence of such documentation was deemed a clear procedural failure.
Assessment of Special Conditions and Hardship: The Court scrutinized whether Dorale met the statutory thresholds by showing that special conditions existed and that enforcement of the setback requirement would cause undue hardship. The Board’s own findings, which acknowledged the lack of extraordinary conditions, undermined the justification for granting a variance.
After-The-Fact Variance Issue: Although variances are traditionally sought before construction, the procedural missteps and the variance being granted post-construction compounded the legal infirmities in the Board’s decision-making process.
Judicial Deference and Scope of Review: While recognizing the court’s limited role in reexamining factual determinations by the Board, the Supreme Court made it clear that it retains the authority to review whether the Board’s decision was legally compliant. The failure to follow the explicit statutory process constituted a reviewable legal error.

Impact on Future Cases and the Relevant Area of Law

This Judgment is significant for several reasons:

It reinforces the primacy of adhering to statutory and regulatory mandates when a local board grants variances. Future cases will likely see stricter judicial scrutiny of whether administrative boards follow required procedures.
The decision sets a precedent indicating that even after construction is completed, the legal mechanism for addressing deviations from zoning regulations (i.e., seeking a variance) must comply strictly with established statutory provisions.
Municipalities and planning boards might re-examine their procedures to ensure that all required findings are documented, thereby reducing the risk of their decisions being overturned on appeal.
The ruling may spur legislative reviews of variance procedures and standards, ensuring clearer guidelines for both property owners and administrative bodies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To better understand the Judgment, consider the following simplifications of complex legal concepts:

Variance: A variance is a request to deviate from a zoning ordinance due to specific hardships. In this case, Dorale asked to build with a setback that did not meet county requirements. However, a valid variance request must show that strict application of the law would lead to unnecessary hardship.
Special Conditions: This term refers to unique circumstances on a property that justify a deviation from standard rules. Although Dorale argued that unique facts existed on his property, the Board ultimately did not document any such exceptional circumstances.
Writ of Certiorari: This is a legal procedure by which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court or an administrative body. The review is limited to questions of law rather than reevaluating factual evidence.
Written Findings: Administrative boards are required to provide a written explanation that demonstrates they have considered all relevant statutory criteria before issuing a variance. The absence of these findings in this case was central to the court’s decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s Judgment in the DeCramer v. Dorale dispute underscores the critical importance of strict compliance with statutory and ordinance procedures when a variance is sought. By reversing the circuit court’s decision, the Court sent a clear message: public bodies such as zoning boards must meticulously document their findings in accordance with legal requirements. This decision not only impacts future variance cases by setting a higher standard of administrative accountability but also reinforces the broader principle that no deviation from well-established statutory language is permissible without clear and explicit documentation. The Judgment serves as a reminder to both regulatory bodies and property owners that administrative discretion is circumscribed by the letter and spirit of the law.