Court Decides Case Involving City’s Attempt To Rezone Agricultural Property

October 9, 2009 | Erin Herbold

Iowa Code §414.3 governs a municipality’s power to zone and requires that zoning regulations be made within a “comprehensive plan and be designed to preserve the availability of agricultural land” and “to encourage efficient urban development patterns.” The statute also specifies sixteen elements that a city must satisfy when adopting zoning regulations, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard in quasi-judicial proceedings. These statutory requirements were at issue in this case.  

Trustees argued that that a city should not be allowed to rezone forty acres of land adjacent to the trust’s land from a suburban agricultural to large-lot residential zone. In October 2006, the city adopted a plan that designated a portion of the trust’s land as a future residential development area. The land in question was owned by private landowners that had consented to the city’s rezoning plan. The trust owned 80 acres directly south of the private landowners’ tract. 

The trust filed a petition with the trial court, claiming that the rezoning was “illegal, arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable, not based on substantial evidence, and an abuse of discretion.” The trial court found that the land in question, even though it formerly was used for agricultural purposes, “visually appeared” to be more residential in character. The court also found that the “spot zoning” involved was not illegal and was within the “police power” of the city to rezone the property to remain consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. 

On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals determined that, based on the requirements of Iowa Code §414.3, the city did comply with the statute and that its decision was “in accordance with the comprehensive plan.” The appellate court went on to say that while rezoning the land would take it out of agricultural production, the land was highly erodible and removing it from production would protect it from further erosion. According to the court, rezoning would lessen congestion on the streets, would add to urban efficiency and was the most appropriate use of the land consistent with its character.  The appellate court also addressed the issue of “illegal spot zoning,” and determined that the evidence supported the rezoning because the area was more consistent with a rural residential use than an agricultural use. The city did not create a zoning ordinance for a “small island of property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on the surrounding property.” Norton Trust v. City Council of  Hudson, Iowa, No. 9-450/ 08-1704 (Iowa Ct. App., Oct. 7, 2009).