Opinion
No. 1-255 / 00-0536.
Filed December 12, 2001.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, K.D. BRINER, JUDGE.
Plaintiffs appeal from a district court order affirming the board of supervisors' denial of their proposed plat of farmland. AFFIRMED.
Joseph J. Bitter, Dubuque, for appellants.
Fred H. McCaw, County Attorney, for appellees.
Heard by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
The plaintiffs appeal from a district court order affirming the board of supervisors' denial of their proposed plat of farmland. They contend the district court erred in affirming the board's decision because the board lacked discretion to refuse the plat and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to provide reasons for the denial.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings . The Kepplers own sixty-three (63) acres of land in Dubuque County. The land is zoned A-1 agricultural. In August 1997, the Kepplers began to seek approval of a plan to subdivide and sell the land. They first sought a zoning change to R-2 residential. The Dubuque County Zoning Board and the County Board of Supervisors denied their request. They then filed a plat subdividing the land into "farmettes". Both boards also denied this proposal. Another requested zoning change to R-1 was denied in 1998. Another subdivision plat was tried and rejected by both boards in 1998. In summary, the Kepplers requested two changes in zoning classification and submitted two different subdivision plats for approval. All were denied. The platting plan was submitted three times and rejected. It is from the third rejection by the board of supervisors that appeal was made to the district court.
The district court affirmed the decisions of the zoning board and the board of supervisors. The Kepplers now urge this court to reverse the district court, alleging that the boards acted illegally and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. We reject these arguments for the same reasons as the district court.
II. Scope of Review . Review by the district court of a board of supervisor's denial of approval of a subdivision plat is de novo. Iowa Code § 354.10 (1999). The district court reviews the facts anew, but if the facts found by the court leave the reasonableness of the board's decision "open to a fair difference of opinion," the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Weldon v. Zoning Board, 250 N.W.2d 396, 401 (Iowa 1977). The reasonableness of the board's decision is not open to "a fair difference of opinion," of course, if the decision is contrary to a rule of law, notwithstanding that it may be within the facts. Oakes Const. Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Iowa 1981). On appeal, our review is the same as that of the district court. Id.
III. Analysis . The Kepplers suggest that the board of supervisors had no discretion to reject the plat. They cite Giltner v. City Council of City of Albia, 128 Iowa 658, 105 N.W. 194 (1905) in support of their argument. The only question raised in Giltner was whether the city council had the right to insist upon the dedication of an alley through each block as a condition precedent to its approval of the plat. Giltner, 128 Iowa at 659, 105 N.W. at 194. Citing the code then in existence, the court held it is only necessary that the plat comply with the provisions of the statutes and the council had no authority to add requirements. Id. at 661, 105 N.W. at 195.
The Iowa Supreme Court has since revisited the issue in Oakes Construction Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1981). Oakes sought to develop a seven acre tract of land into a residential addition and prepared and filed a "preliminary plat." Oakes Const. Co., 304 N.W.2d at 799. Although the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat, the council unanimously disapproved it because of insufficient access to the subdivision. Id. at 802. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected the strict application of earlier cases, including Giltner, and granted local governments more discretion in applying platting ordinances. Id. at 804-06.
On balance, we incline toward a reasonably liberal reading of subdivision legislation, subject to the watchful eyes of the courts under their de novo review. At the same time, we hold that councils must not approve or disapprove on whim, see Knutson v. State ex rel. Seberger, 157 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ind. 1959), but rather on the facts of each case and on the manifest objects and purposes of the legislation. 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 83c, at 200-01 (1949) ("In exercising its powers a planning board or commission should act reasonably, and should be guided by factors affecting the welfare of the community, and by the provisions of the statute or charter under which it operates.").
Id. at 806.
In light of the directions of Oakes, we now look at the state statutes and Dubuque County ordinances for guidance.
Iowa Code section 354.1(2) states it is in the public interest "[t]o provide for a balance between the land use rights of individual landowners and the economic, social, and environmental concerns of the public when a city or county is developing or enforcing land use regulations."
Iowa Code section 354.8 provides in pertinent part:
A proposed subdivision plat lying within the jurisdiction of a governing body shall be submitted to that governing body for review and approval prior to recording. . . . Governing bodies shall apply reasonable standards and conditions in accordance with applicable statutes and ordinances for the review and approval of subdivisions. The governing body, within sixty days of application for final approval of the subdivision plat, shall determine whether the subdivision conforms to its comprehensive plan and shall give consideration to the possible burden on public improvements and to a balance of interests between the proprietor, future purchasers, and the public interest in the subdivision when reviewing the proposed subdivision and when requiring the installation of public improvements in conjunction with approval of a subdivision.
In addition, section 2-1 of Dubuque County's ordinance states:
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards for platting, new subdivisions, and re-subdivisions of land and surveys which create new lots, so that existing land uses will be protected, and so that growth occurs in an orderly manner, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Dubuque County, Iowa.
Section 2-22 provides: "The Board of Supervisors may reject any plat which in their opinion violates this provision (requiring lots to be compatible with the existing zoning classification)." Section 2-36.2(g) requires plats to show the "existing and proposed zoning of the proposed subdivision and adjoining property as well as the proposed use of the property." Section 2-51.2 and .3 require the zoning commission and the board to determine if a plat conforms to county ordinances, the comprehensive plan, and other duly adopted plans of the county. Sections 2-62.1(n), 2-62.1(p), 2-64.1(b) and 20-64.1(d) in the section on final plat review and approval require the plat to conform to local ordinances and comprehensive land use plans.
Oakes gave part of the rationale of these statutes and ordinances by citing a Note, Subdivision Regulation in Iowa, 54 Iowa L. Rev. 1121, 1122-23 (1969):
Once an area of the city is developed, the cost of change becomes prohibitive, and it becomes evident that a subdivider has cast the pattern for the future community. Since urbanization of raw land at the city's edge is now the most important development area, it is here that the most significant public influence should be exerted. Although the individual subdivider may see his particular subdivision as a complete unit, the planning agency or commission must necessarily view it as a segment of an entire community. It is therefore apparent that the initial factor that should encourage the interest of the community in effective subdivision control is the permanence of the development itself.
In addition to the permanence of the development, as society becomes more complex the community is called upon to furnish additional services and to extend existing facilities to its new subdivision residents. The municipality, for instance, will have to provide extended police and fire protection, make provision for garbage disposal, and install gas, telephone and electric utility service. By providing these services the city should have the opportunity to make sure that the streets are wide enough to facilitate fire fighting equipment and that the lots are large enough to prevent fire hazards and ensure utility easements. The layout and construction of streets should be capable of handling present and anticipated traffic and of providing adequate parking. To provide for the general health, the community must demand that drainage be adequate to prevent flooding, that facilities be sufficient to provide for disposal and treatment of sewage and that a sanitary and ample water service be made available. Concern must also be given to provisions for the educational and recreational facilities demanded by the new subdivision. By the enforcement of subdivision regulations the community will be alerted to the possibility of the new services it will be forced to provide.Oakes Const. Co., 304 N.W.2d at 805.
Applying the reasoning of Oakes, we hold that the board may consider the long term results in passing upon plats. It is not arbitrary or capricious or illegal for a board to refuse a plat that effectively changes the zoning. As the district court succinctly observed of the Keppler's request: "The effect would be that every A-1 parcel, and every subdivision of an A-1 parcel, no matter how small and no matter how secondary the agricultural use, could be sold and used as the site of a residence." The board has discretion to reject a plat that is likely to result in the construction of residences on land previously used for farming. The loss of the farmland would no doubt be permanent.
The Kepplers cannot claim they do not know the reasons for the rejection of the plat. After extensive discussion of the Kepplers' proposals to rezone or plat, the board and the zoning commission repeatedly concluded that the proposed subdivision and sale would convert agricultural land to residential use. They made it clear to the Kepplers that this conversion was not permitted under the existing zoning classification and was not compatible with present and future uses of the surrounding area.
We hold on the record that the Kepplers have not established a clear case of arbitrary and unjust exercise of discretion by the board in refusing to approve their plat.
AFFIRMED.