Public Meeting Notice

RPA 14 / ATURA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AFFILIATION

Iowa Supreme Court Comments on Some Zoning Issues

The following paragraphs about zoning are found on the ISU Planning Bluz site.  This comes from an article written by Professor Gary Taylor. It pertains to a zoning change for the Field of Dreams site in northeastern Iowa. We put it in this article because it gives some of the insight into what the Iowa Supreme Court rules on about several zoning issues in this case, which could be applicable to local situations in our region.

“Impartiality of the city council. The Court noted that, while it was true that several council members viewed the rezoning and the project as an opportunity for the city, each council member attended all meetings, read reports, listened to citizens speak for and against the project, asked questions, and investigated issues and concerns. Nothing in the record demonstrated that any council member had any conflict of interest. Several members participated in an economic development bus trip to Des Moines to discuss the project with legislators and state officials, but the Court found that mere participation in such activities for the potential benefit of the city does not establish partiality or bias. “Rather, this is more akin to the council members upholding their public duty by performing their due diligence in determining what state aid might be available to help with the project before any formal action was taken. The council made its decision based on what it believed was best for the community after a full and open discussion of the issues over many months.”

Decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable. A decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when it is not authorized by statute, or is unsupported by the facts. For the reasons cited above, the Court declined to find in favor of the petitioners on these grounds.

Inconsistent with comprehensive plan.  Under Iowa Code 414.3, zoning regulations “shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” The Court referred to its prior decision in Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe County for the principle that “compliance with the comprehensive plan requirement merely means that the zoning authorities have given ‘full consideration the problem presented, including the needs of the public, changing conditions, and the similarity of other land in the same area.'”  The Court referred to the boilerplate language found in every plan that says rezonings should be made with consideration of the unique character of the area, the suitability of the land for the proposed use, the conservation of buildings or value, and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of the land. It noted that the Field of Dreams site is a unique parcel of land, and that the council considered the distinctiveness of the land and whether the proposed rezoning would be the best use of the site for the benefit of the community as a whole. The city’s community builder plan also specifically addresses the importance of preserving the site in order to maintain and increase tourism.

Illegal spot zoning. To determine whether illegal spot zoning has occurred, a court must consider (1) whether the new zoning is germane to an object within the police power; (2) whether there is a reasonable basis for making a distinction between the spot zoned land and the surrounding property; and (3) whether the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.  Noting again the uniqueness of the Field of Dreams site, the Court refused to find this to be a case of illegal spot zoning even though the result is an island of commercial development surrounded by agriculturally zoned properties.

200-foot buffer zone.  Under Iowa Code 414.5, if 20% or more of the landowners immediately adjacent to the property proposed to be rezoned protest the change, then the city council must approve the rezoning by a four-fifths vote.  The rezoning applicants left out of the rezoning request a 200-foot buffer zone along the three sides of the perimeter of the property (leaving it as A-1 Agricultural). The petitioners challenged the use of this 200-foot buffer as a way to prevent nearby property owners from objecting to the project and thereby triggering the requirement of a unanimous vote. While the Court acknowledged that “at first blush the buffer zone can appear to be unfair,” the Court concluded that the buffer in fact provides a benefit to adjacent landowners by addressing their expressed concerns about hunting and farming operations directly adjacent to the ballfields. The Court also noted that other courts have validated the use of buffer zones to avoid supermajority requirements. Regardless, even if the 200-foot buffer was improper, the rezoning was adopted by 4-1 vote of the city council.

Incorrect legal description. While the notice of the original ordinance (Ordinance 770) contained errors in the legal description, the council corrected the legal description in the ordinance that ultimately rezoned the property (Ordinance 777). No new notices were published, however, for Ordinance 777.  The Court does not require complete accuracy when providing notice. Neither Iowa Code nor the city ordinances require the publication of a complete legal description. The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the public reasonable notice of the pending action.  The public was well aware of the ongoing proceedings, and no one was confused or misled by the inaccuracy of the legal description.

Equal Protection. Petitioners argued that all neighboring landowners were similarly situated, yet the 3-sided 200-foot buffer prevented those neighbors along the buffer from exercising the same right to object as the neighbors along the side of the property without the buffer. The Court found that the council’s decision met the rational basis test required by the Equal Protection clause in this case. The buffers, as described above, served a legitimate purpose of protecting the neighboring properties on the three sides.

Due Process. Petitioners and the public in general were given adequate notice.  Further, they were heard in multiple public hearings. All community members wishing to speak were allowed to do so.”

Platinum ($2,500)

*Creston City Water Works

*Clarke County Development Corporation

*City of Osceola

*John Wayne Birthplace Society, LTD of Winterset

Diamond ($1,500)

*First National Bank of Creston & Afton

*Iowa State Savings Bank of Creston & Lenox

*Lenox Municipal Utilities

Gold ($1,000)

*Corning Municipal Utilities

*Garden & Associates, LTD of Creston & Oskaloosa

*PCSB of Clarinda, Corning, Creston, Lenox and Mount Ayr

Silver ($500)

*American State Bank of Lamoni, Osceola & Winterset

*JEO Consulting Group of Ankeny

*North Stone Apartments & Corkrean Construction of Winterset

*Snyder & Associates, Inc of Ankeny & Atlantic

*Southwest Iowa Rural Electric Cooperative of Corning, Mount Ayr & Stanton

*Tyler Insurance Services of Creston & Mount Ayr

*Veenstra & Kimm, INC of West Des Moines

Bronze ($250)

*Adams Community Economic Development Corporation

*Afton Development Corporation

*Akin Building Center of Corning & Creston

*City State Bank of Mount Ayr

*Clarke County Hospital

*Clarke Electrical Cooperative of Osceola

*Community Development Corp of Greenfield

*Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Orient, St. Charles & Winterset

*First National Bank of Osceola

*FNB of Fontanelle & Greenfield

*Grundman Insurance Agency of Corning

*Lenox Chamber of Commerce

*Lenox Development Corporation

*R Realty of Creston

*Rainbow International of Winterset

*Ringgold County Development Corporation

*Saylor Realty, LLC of Osceola

*Southwestern Community College

*State Bank of Brooks of Corning

*Subway of Corning

*TS Bank of Treynor in Corning

*Union County Development Association

*Union State Bank of Greenfield

*Union State Bank of Winterset

• SICOG Closed Monday, May 29 in Observance of Memorial Day

• SICOG Executive Board Meeting- Tuesday, June 6

• SICOG Closed Tuesday, July 4 in Observance of Independence Day

SICOG Executive Board

Jerry Walker, Chairperson, Adair County

Diane Fitch, Vice Chairperson, Madison County

Karen Zabel, Secretary, Taylor County

Scott Akin, Treasurer, Adams County

Randy Dunbar, Clarke County

Dan Christensen, Decatur County

Colby Holmes, Ringgold County

Rick Friday, Union County

Doug Davidson, Private Sector

Tom Leners, Private Sector

Raelynne Risser, Private Sector

Jodie Geist, Private Sector

Wayne Pantini, Member-At-Large

SICOG Staff

Beth Waddle, Executive Director

Judy Brimm, Finance Director

Jeremy Rounds, Regional Planner

Jessica Hagen, Transportation Planner

Terry Niestadt, Regional Planner

Kendra Comstock, Planning Tech