Iowa Court of Appeals Sends Zoning Variance Challenge Back to District Court

Overview

The Iowa Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Earlham Board of Adjustment in an action alleging that the Board illegally granted a zoning variance to a cooperative company to expand its grain bin operation within the city limits.

Facts of the Case and Trial Court Judgment

The cooperative owned and operated a number of grain bins within the City of Earlham. The operation predated the city’s zoning ordinances. Consequently, the existing bins violated the height and set-back requirements of the ordinances, but were exempt from their reach. In 2011, the cooperative requested a building permit to construct more bins on property it purchased adjacent to its existing operation. The city zoning administrator denied the request, ruling that the proposed bins did not comply with height and set-back requirements of the city zoning ordinances. The cooperative appealed to the Board, and the Board approved a variance, granting the cooperative the right to construct grain bins with no set-back requirements at a height in excess of ordinance limits.

The plaintiff challenged the action, alleging that the Board acted illegally, and the district court remanded to the Board for a rehearing and for written findings of fact. The Board again granted the variance, and the plaintiff filed discovery requests intended to prove his claim of illegality. While the requests were outstanding, the district court granted summary judgment for the Board, and the plaintiff appealed.

Appellate Opinion

Reversing the order granting summary judgment, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the Board relied upon a nonconforming use when justifying the variance. Under Iowa Code §414.12(3), the Board had to determine that (1) the variance was not contrary to public interest, (2) literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and (3) the spirit of the ordinance would be observed and substantial justice done. The Earlham Municipal Code further prohibited the Board from considering any “nonconforming use” of neighboring lands or structures in determining that granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privileges denied by the ordinance to other lands or structures in the same district. The Municipal Code further prohibited the expansion of any nonconforming buildings or the extension of any nonconforming use of land beyond the area occupied at the time the Municipal Code was enacted.

The plaintiff argued that the Board illegally relied upon the cooperative’s nonconforming use of its adjoining property to justify the variance. The court found that the record was not sufficient to determine whether the Board had relied on the existence of the nonconforming grain bins in making its decision. The Board stated in its findings of fact that the variance would expand the business of the cooperative, and the Board specifically stated that the nonconforming structures had been in place since 1959 and 1960. The Board also found that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the cooperative “also has bins that exceed the local ordinance standards presently.” The court found that it was unclear from these statements whether the Board relied on a nonconforming use when justifying the variance. The court returned the case to the district court, where the plaintiff will likely be entitled to complete his discovery.