Baltimore v. Dallas County

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: February 7, 2024
• Docket: 23-0142
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0142 Filed February 7, 2024

SHAD BALTIMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DALLAS COUNTY, and ALTERNATE ROUTE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Terry Rickers, Judge.

Shad Baltimore appeals the district court decision finding the Dallas County

Board of Supervisors did not act illegally by rezoning a portion of the property

owned by Alternate Route Properties, LLC from agricultural to light industrial.

AFFIRMED.

Billy J. Mallory and Trevor A. Jordison of Mallory Law, West Des Moines,

for appellant.

Hugh Cain (until withdrawal), Brent L. Hinders, and Eric M. Updegraff of

Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee Dallas County.

Kristina Stanger and Logan Eliasen of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des

Moines, for appellee Alternate Route Properties, LLC.

Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. 2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

Shad Baltimore appeals the district court decision finding the Dallas County

Board of Supervisors (Board) did not act illegally by rezoning a portion of the

property owned by Alternate Route Properties, LLC (Alternate Route) from

agricultural to light industrial. We find the Board was not required to amend the

Dallas County Comprehensive Plan, the Board’s decision was consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan, the Board did not engage in illegal spot zoning, and the

Board acted reasonably. We affirm the district court.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

This case involves a parcel of about 2.5 acres of land in Dallas County. The

property abuts a county highway. In 1970, the property was owned by John

Penick. He sought to have the property rezoned from agricultural to industrial for

the purpose of manufacturing concrete products. The Board approved Penick’s

request but specified there should be a 150-foot agricultural buffer around the

perimeter of the property.1

In 2021, Penick sold the property to Alternate Route, which intended to

operate a commercial landscaping business at that location. Alternate Route filed

a request with the Dallas County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission)

asking to have the entire property rezoned to an industrial classification, thereby

eliminating the 150-foot agricultural buffer. Alternate Route installed a six-foot

privacy fence between its property and that of Baltimore.

1 The Board did not specify what activities were allowed or not allowed within the

agricultural buffer area. There was no evidence the agricultural buffer was ever implemented while Penick owned the property. 3

Baltimore objected to the rezoning request. He noted that several

properties in the area were zoned residential. Baltimore stated the proposed

rezoning did not comply with the Dallas County Comprehensive Plan and

constituted illegal spot zoning. Despite these objections, the Commission

recommended approval of the rezoning. It found the 150-foot agricultural buffer

area was “excessive and does little to minimize adverse impacts.”

The matter proceeded to a public hearing before the Board on

November 30. After one of the Board members stated that he needed more time

to review the materials, the Board continued discussion of the rezoning until the

January 11, 2022 meeting. At the January meeting, the Board found the rezoning

of the property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and approved the

petition to make the entire parcel light industrial.

Baltimore filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming that the Board’s

decision was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious and that it was not supported by

substantial evidence. He asserted the Board failed to comply with the

Comprehensive Plan and engaged in illegal spot zoning. The Board resisted the

petition. Alternate Route joined in the Board’s brief.

The district court concluded the Board’s decision was supported by

substantial evidence; was not illegal, arbitrary, or capricious; and was not an abuse

of discretion. The court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari. The court found:

Baltimore has not met his burden to show the County’s rezoning decision was unreasonably [sic], arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. Reasonable minds, when presented with the [Alternate Route] Property’s previous uses and classification and the [Comprehensive Plan], could conclude that the County did not illegally spot-zone the [Alternate Route] Property. As such, the Court 4

shall not substitute its decision for that of the Board’s and Baltimore’s Writ of Certiorari must be denied on this ground.

Baltimore appeals the district court’s decision.

II. Standard of Review

Baltimore filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming the Board’s action

was illegal. See Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1401. “An inferior tribunal commits

an illegality if the decision violates a statute, is not supported by substantial

evidence, or is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” Bowman v. City of Des

Moines Mun. Hous. Agency, 805 N.W.2d 790, 796 (Iowa 2011). In a certiorari

action, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden to prove the illegality.” Nash Finch Co. v.

City Council of City of Cedar Rapids, 672 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa 2003).

We review a district court’s ruling on a petition for writ of certiorari for the

correction of errors at law. Burroughs v. City of Davenport Zoning Bd. of

Adjustment, 912 N.W.2d 473, 478 (Iowa 2018). “We are bound by the district

court’s findings if supported by substantial evidence.” Baker v. Bd. of Adjustment

of City of Johnston, 671 N.W.2d 405, 414 (Iowa 2003). “However, we are not

bound by erroneous legal rulings that materially affect the court’s decision.” Id.

III. Dallas County Comprehensive Plan

A. Baltimore contends the Board could not approve the rezoning of

Alternate Route’s property without amending the Dallas County Comprehensive

Plan. Iowa Code section 335.5(4) (2021) provides that a comprehensive plan may

be adopted by a county board of supervisors following a public hearing. County

zoning “regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”

Iowa Code § 335.5(1). 5

In Smith v. City of Fort Dodge, two property owners requested to have their

properties rezoned to permit multiple family dwellings from a zone that allowed

only single family dwellings. 160 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Iowa 1968). The neighboring

landowners claimed the requested zoning change was a substantial change to the

comprehensive plan, requiring the council to go through the process to amend the

comprehensive plan.2 Id. at 495. The court found the procedural requirements to

amend the comprehensive plan “related only to major changes in the

comprehensive plan” and the present circumstances “did not amount to such a

change.” Id. at 497. The court found amendment of the comprehensive plan was

required for “general modification of the zoning districts or regulations in that law,

not isolated, minor, or individual changes.” Id. The court concluded the rezoning

did not require the amendment of the comprehensive plan. Id. at 498.

We conclude Baltimore has not shown the rezoning of Alternate Route’s

individual property to eliminate the 150-foot agricultural buffer is a change that

would require amendment of the Dallas County Comprehensive Plan.

B. Baltimore also claims that rezoning Alternate Route’s property to

eliminate the 150-foot agricultural buffer is not consistent with the Comprehensive

Plan. As noted, county zoning regulations are required to be consistent with a

county’s comprehensive plan. See Iowa Code § 335.5(1). Where there is a

comprehensive plan, zoning decisions should be made “to promote the goals of

2 This process was found in Iowa Code section 373.20 (1966), which provided “no

substantial amendment” of a comprehensive plan could be made without referring the matter to the city plan commission or by a vote of the city council. Section 373.20 was repealed in 1972. See 1972 Acts, ch. 1088, § 199. Now amendments to a comprehensive plan may be made following notice and a public hearing. See Iowa Code § 335.5(4) (2021). 6

that individualized plan.” Webb v. Giltner, 468 N.W.2d 838, 841 (Iowa Ct. App.

1991).

A comprehensive plan is

a “comprehensive, long-term general plan” for the physical development of the community, [which] embodies information, judgments, and objectives collected and formulated by experts to serve as both a guiding and predictive force. Based on comprehensive surveys and analysis of existing social, economic, and physical conditions in the community and of the factors which generate them, the plan directs attention to the goals selected by the community from the various alternatives propounded and clarified by planning experts, and delimits the means (within available resources) for arriving at these objectives . . . .

Velie Outdoor Advert. of Sioux City, Inc. v. Sioux City, 252 N.W.2d 408, 410–11

(Iowa 1977) (alterations in original) (quoting Charles M. Haar, In Accordance with

a Comprehensive Plan, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 1154, 1155 (1955) (footnote omitted)).

The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to avoid “piecemeal and haphazard

zoning.” Wolf v. City of Ely, 493 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa 1992). “The

comprehensive plan requirement is intended to ensure the county board acts

rationally rather than arbitrarily in exercising their delegated zoning authority.” Id.

“The party challenging a zoning decision on the basis that it was not made

in accordance with the city’s comprehensive plan carries a heavy burden that

requires the party to counter the ‘strong presumption of validity accorded zoning

decisions.’” Residential & Agric. Advisory Comm., LLC v. Dyersville City Council,

888 N.W.2d 24, 44 (Iowa 2016) (citation omitted); see also Dettman v. Clayton

Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 04-1629, 2005 WL 1630826, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.

July 13, 2005) (finding the appellants had a heavy burden to show the Board of

Supervisors acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in determining an urban 7

renewal plan conformed to a comprehensive plan). “[C]ompliance with the

comprehensive plan requirement merely means that zoning authorities have given

full consideration to the problem presented, including the needs of the public,

changing conditions, and the similarity of other land in the same area.” Residential

& Agric. Advisory Comm., 888 N.W.2d at 45 (citation omitted).

The Board gave full consideration to Alternate Route’s request to rezone

the property and the objections to their request by holding a public hearing and

allowing members of the public to voice their opinions. The Comprehensive Plan

states, “Flexibility in implementing the Comprehensive Plan requires balancing the

concepts of the plan with the realities of the growth and change.”

One of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan provides, “Encourage

development and infill . . . within existing Industrial and Commercial lands.” The

elimination of the 150-foot agricultural barrier can be considered infill where the

remainder of the parcel has been zoned light industrial since 1970. Baltimore has

not shown the Board acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused its

discretion by deciding to rezone Alternate Route’s property to eliminate the 150-

foot agricultural buffer, so the entire property is zoned light industrial. We conclude

there is substantial evidence in the record to support the district court’s decision

that the Board acted consistently with the Comprehensive Plan.

IV. Spot Zoning

Baltimore alleges the Board engaged in illegal spot zoning. “‘Spot zoning’

when construed to mean reclassification of one or more like tracts or similar lots

for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance and out of harmony therewith

is illegal.” Kane v. City Council of City of Cedar Rapids, 537 N.W.2d 718, 723 8

(Iowa 1995) (quoting Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, 66 N.W.2d 113, 120 (Iowa

1954)). “Spot zoning results when a zoning ordinance creates a small island of

property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on the

surrounding property.” Little v. Winborn, 518 N.W.2d 384, 387 (Iowa 1994).

Spot zoning is not necessarily illegal. Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors of

Madison Cnty., 636 N.W.2d 58, 67 (Iowa 2001). To determine if spot zoning is

valid, the court considers “(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.” Id. at 68. Each

case is determined “based on its own peculiar facts.” Id.

Spot zoning arises when like or similar tracts of land are treated differently.

Kane, 537 N.W.2d at 723.

It is within a council’s power and authority, however, to decide whether or not the property so designated is similar in character and use to that of surrounding property, and when a sufficient showing has been made to reasonably support its judgment, such discretion may not be superseded by the court’s different conclusion.

Keller, 66 N.W.2d at 116. “Courts reviewing zoning ordinances should not

substitute their judgment as to the propriety of the city’s action when the

reasonableness of the ordinance or its amendment is fairly debatable.” Kane, 537

N.W.2d at 724.

The district court determined:

In contrast, the County argues a portion of the [Alternate Route] Property was already zoned as I-1 light industrial since 1970. The County claims expansion of the light industrial classification to the entire parcel did not create a small island of property, as a light industrial classification previously existed. Rather, the Board’s 9

rezoning decision merely expanded an existing use of industrial property. Thus, even if the original action in the 1970s was spot zoning, the Board’s rezoning in 2022 could not be the creation of an island because it was adjacent to an existing industrial use. This Court agrees and finds that Baltimore’s writ must be denied on this ground.

In discussing spot zoning, we have stated:

If the reasonableness of the amendment is fairly debatable, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Board of Supervisors. We will uphold the action of the Board of Supervisors if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. The court should not interfere with the zoning decisions of the Board of Supervisors unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. The property owners, as challengers of the amendment, have the burden to show the amendment is arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory.

Suiter v. City Council of City of Princeton, No. 13-0775, 2014 WL 468017, at *4 n.6

(Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2014) (quoting Perkins, 636 N.W.2d at 67).

The reasonableness of the Board’s decision was fairly debatable, as it was

supported by competent and substantial evidence. See id. The rezoning of the

150-foot agricultural barrier to light industrial did not create a small island of

property with a use different than that of surrounding property. See Little, 518

N.W.2d at 387. The majority of the property had been zoned light industrial since

1970, and the rezoned area was attached to this light industrial area. For this

reason, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the Board. See Perkins, 636

N.W.2d at 67.

V. Rezoning

Finally, Baltimore contends the district court improperly determined the

Board’s decision to rezone the 150-foot agricultural barrier was reasonable and

supported by substantial evidence. He claims that the same factors that led to the

requirement to have the agricultural barrier are still present and there was 10

insufficient evidence to support a finding that the agricultural barrier should be

eliminated. Baltimore asserts that the zoning change benefits only Alternate Route

and not the surrounding property owners.

Similarly to our discussion of spot zoning, the Board’s decision will be

upheld if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Perkins, 636

N.W.2d at 67. If the reasonableness of the Board’s decision is fairly debatable, we

do not substitute our judgment for that of the Board. Id.

The district court found,

In this case, the Court concludes the reasonableness of the Board’s rezoning, in light of the “agricultural buffer,” is open to a fair difference of opinion. Reasonable minds, when presented with the Dallas County Zoning Ordinance and the complaints from the surrounding landowners, could conclude that the preservation of an “agricultural buffer” was not required by the Board. As such, the Court shall not substitute its decision for that of the Board’s and Baltimore’s Writ of Certiorari must be denied on this ground.

Although the requirement for the agricultural barrier was set out in 1970,

there was no evidence the barrier was ever put in place. In addition, there were

no complaints about the lack of an agricultural barrier for more than fifty years.

The complaints arose when Alternate Route sought to rezone the entirety of its

property to light industrial. The Planning and Zoning Commission found the 150-

foot agricultural buffer area was “excessive and does little to minimize adverse

impacts.” Furthermore, Alternate Route installed a six-foot fence in the area where

the agricultural barrier would have been situated. 11

When the reasonableness of the Board’s decision is fairly debatable, as it

is here, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Board. See id. We affirm

the decision of the district court.