Opinion
No. 2-506 / 01-1964.
Filed August 14, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, BRUCE B. ZAGER, Judge.
Michael and Patricia Riniker appeal the denial of their petition for writ of certiorari based on the denial of their request to rezone their property. AFFIRMED.
Werner Hellmer of Day Hellmer, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Lyle Galliart, Assistant County Attorney, Dubuque, for appellee
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Michael and Patricia Riniker appeal the denial of their petition for writ of certiorari based on the denial of their request to rezone their property. We affirm.
Background facts and proceedings .
The Rinikers own property on which they reside in a rural area of Dubuque County. In October of 1998, they filed an application requesting to rezone their property from "R-1" rural residential to "B-1" business district in order to open a small repair business, which would include automotive repair. They planned to construct a 40' x 60' building in which to house the repair shop. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Dubuque Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission), the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors (Board) denied the request.
Having failed in this attempt, the Rinikers consulted with the Dubuque County Zoning Administrator, Paul Buss, regarding their options for a second application. He recommended they tailor their application to include agricultural related repair, since the property was located in a rural, agricultural area. On January 10, 1999, the Rinikers filed a second application to rezone their property. This new application described the property's intended use as "to operate a general repair, welding, and metal fabrication shop." Apparently unbeknownst to the Rinikers, Paul Buss added the language "of farm machinery" to the end of this description. The Commission recommended the Board approve the request, and the Board subsequently conditionally granted the rezoning, contingent on the following conditions: (1) the rezoning be for the proposed business only, (2) the land not be subdivided, and (3) the zoning will revert to R-2, rural residential, upon the sale of the property.
The Rinikers subsequently constructed the planned building on their property and began operation of their business known as Diversified Mechanical Services (DMS). On May 16, 2000, an anonymous complaint was filed with the Dubuque County Zoning Department alleging the Rinikers were in violation of the conditional zoning in that they were performing automobile repairs. The current zoning administrator, Anna O'Shea, visited DMS and discovered automotive repairs were, in fact, being performed. She subsequently cited the Rinikers for the violation of the zoning ordinance. In response, the Rinikers filed another application for rezoning, seeking to have the property rezoned from "B-1" conditional to "B-1" business district and noting the proposed use was to include automobile repair. Following a recommendation by the Commission, the Board denied the application.
On October 6, 2000, the Rinikers filed a "Petition for Judicial Review and Certiorari," asserting the actions of the Commission and Board were arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious, and constituted a denial of their rights to due process and equal protection of the law. After considering the parties' briefs, arguments, and stipulations of fact, the court annulled the petition for writ of certiorari. It concluded the Board had a substantial basis in the record from which to deny the Rinikers' request for rezoning. It noted the Board had given full consideration to the request in finding the requested use would be inconsistent with the overall land use and inconsistent with the overall agricultural nature of the area. The Rinikers appeal.
Standards of review .
Our review in this certiorari action is limited to correction of errors at law, and we are bound by the findings of the district court if supported by substantial evidence. Sergeant Bluff-Luton Sch. Dist. v. City Council , 605 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Iowa 2000).
Our rules of civil procedure provide that, "[u]nless otherwise specially provided by statute, the judgment on certiorari shall be limited to sustaining the proceedings below, or annulling the same wholly or in part, to the extent that they were illegal or in excess of jurisdiction. . . ." Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1411 . "Illegality exists when the findings on which the court has based its conclusions of law do not have substantial evidentiary support or when the court has not applied the proper rule of law." Whitlock v. Iowa Dist. Court, 497 N.W.2d 891, 893 (Iowa 1993).
Comprehensive Plan .
The Rinikers first maintain the district court erred in failing to conclude the Board's action was illegal due to its failure to consider, follow, or have an updated comprehensive plan. Iowa Code section 414.3 (2001) requires that county zoning ordinances be adopted "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." Case law has clarified that if a board of supervisors gave full consideration to the problem presented, including the needs of the public, changing conditions, and the similarity of other land in the same area, then it has zoned in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Webb v. Giltner, 468 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). In Montgomery v. Bremer County Bd. of Supervisors, 299 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Iowa 1980), our supreme court enunciated a rather flexible standard for whether a board's decision was in accordance with a comprehensive plan. See Webb v. Giltner, 468 N.W.2d at 840. Fidelity to the comprehensive plan, whether inherent in the zoning ordinance or a separate written document, reduces the risk of arbitrary decision making, lending stability and predictability to the zoning process. Iowa Coal Min. Co., Inc. v. Monroe County, 494 N.W.2d 664, 669 (Iowa 1993).
In July of 1968, Dubuque County enacted a comprehensive plan known as the Summary Development Plan for Dubuque County. Pertinently, the plan states, "it is generally undesirable to have residential and commercial uses mixed together on adjacent lots in indiscriminate fashion." In addition, another goal expressed in the plan is that land uses must be "mutually compatible." There is no requirement as to how recently a comprehensive plan must have been enacted or updated to be in effect. In fact, the comprehensive plan need not even be reduced to written form. See Webb v. Giltner , 468 N.W.2d at 840. We thus reject the Riniker's contention the county's failure to have an updated plan invalidates the denial of rezoning.
Although the comments from the members of the Board reveal varying degrees of understanding of the particulars of the Summary Development Plan, the record does reveal they acted in general conformance with the Plan and the county's zoning ordinance. Supervisor Donna Smith testified in a deposition the county is guided both by the Dubuque County zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Supervisor Alan Manternach admitted that although he at least tries to use the comprehensive plan in resolving rezoning requests, it is often difficult to do since the plan is so dated and he usually votes based simply on whether he believes a particular use "fits."
The Board's denial of the Rinikers' request appears consistent with the Summary Development Plan's goal that it is generally undesirable to have residential and commercial uses mixed together on adjacent lots in indiscriminate fashion. Further, the Board, consistent with the plan's goal of having "mutually compatible" land uses, concluded an automotive repair shop was incompatible with the rural, agrarian nature of the area. Therefore, we also reject the Riniker's charge the Board failed to follow or even consider the comprehensive plan.
Unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious .
The Rinikers generally contend the district court erred in its decision by not finding the Board's action illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. There is a strong presumption of the validity of the board of supervisor's action. Kane v. City Council of Cedar Rapids, 537 N.W.2d 718, 724 (Iowa 1995). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the board. Id . We will uphold its action if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Id . The court should not interfere with the zoning decisions of the board of supervisors unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. See City of Grimes v. Polk County Bd. of Supervisors, 495 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Iowa 1993). The property owners, as challengers of the amendment, have the burden to show the amendment is arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. Quality Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. City of Spencer, 586 N.W.2d 202, 207 (Iowa 1998).
Supervisor Donna Smith testified in a deposition that she voted against the request primarily because it would constitute spot zoning and it was "in the heart of a residentially-zoned area." Other members of the Board obviously were concerned the allowance of the Riniker's proposed use, automotive repair, in an area which is predominantly agricultural, would constitute "spot zoning." Spot zoning is the creation of a small island of property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on surrounding property. Fox v. Polk County Bd. of Supervisors, 569 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Iowa 1997). Spot zoning is not automatically invalid. Little v. Winborn , 518 N.W.2d 384, 387 (Iowa 1994). The factor of primary importance is whether the rezoned tract has a peculiar adaptability to the new classification as compared to the surrounding property. Id . at 388. Spot zoning for the benefit of the owner and contrary to the comprehensive plan is unreasonable. Jaffe v. City of Davenport , 179 N.W.2d 554, 556 (Iowa 1970).
We conclude competent and substantial evidence supports the Board's concern that the rezoning request would constitute illegal spot zoning. As noted, the Rinikers' property is situated in a residentially-zoned, agricultural area. Any rezoning to allow automotive repair on the Rinikers' property would inure solely to the benefit of the Rinikers. The Board believed the area was not conducive to operating such a business and we must defer to that determination.
We recognize the efforts and accommodations the Rinikers made in support of their rezoning request. After their initial rejection, they sought out the advice of the Zoning Administrator and later presented a petition with signatures of 1,416 people in support of their rezoning request. They have additionally attempted to minimize the impact of an automotive repair shop on the surrounding environment. For example, they constructed a building large enough to accommodate vehicles and other equipment, such that they would not constitute a public eyesore. While we commend the Rinikers for their persistence and efforts, we believe this is a question properly presented to, and passed upon, by the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors. See Helmke v. Bd. of Adjustment, City of Ruthven, 418 N.W.2d 346, 347 (Iowa 1988) ("If the district court's findings of fact leave the reasonableness of the board's action open to a fair difference of opinion, the court may not substitute its decision for that of the board."). As we conclude the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we may not interfere with its judgment.
AFFIRMED.