Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

A joint drainage district, managed by the boards of supervisors for Floyd and Cerro Gordo Counties, sought to require a railroad company to install a new, larger drainage culvert through a railroad embankment to improve water flow and address aging infrastructure. The existing culvert, over a century old, was deteriorating and positioned too high to drain water effectively. The proposed construction involved a trenchless “jack and bore” method designed to avoid any interruption to rail service. The railroad company objected, arguing that federal law preempted state drainage law and that the construction would jeopardize railroad operations.After a remand from the Surface Transportation Board, the Iowa District Court for Floyd County conducted a bench trial and concluded that federal law—the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act—preempted the drainage district’s authority. The district court found that the proposed installation posed risks to rail operations and issued a writ of mandamus preventing the project. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the federal statute did not categorically preempt state drainage law in this context and that preemption would only apply if the project imposed more than incidental interference with rail operations. After a de novo review of the evidence, the court determined that the proposed culvert installation would have only incidental effects on rail transportation and that the railroad had not met its burden of showing unreasonable interference. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the drainage district, dissolving the writ of mandamus. View "Iowa Northern Railway Company v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

A county board of supervisors approved a nonprofit entity’s application to rezone a parcel of land in rural Polk County. Another nonprofit entity and several nearby landowners filed a lawsuit challenging the rezoning decision. The plaintiffs argued that the rezoning violated the county’s comprehensive land use plan, zoning ordinances, and constituted illegal spot zoning. The board of supervisors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing and were subject to heightened pleading requirements under Iowa’s Municipal Tort Claims Act.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing and were subject to the Act’s heightened pleading requirements. The court found that the individual plaintiffs did not adequately allege their proximity to the rezoned property or their personal concerns, and that the nonprofit organization did not sufficiently allege that its members had a specific and personal interest in the rezoning. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could not amend their petition due to the Act’s requirements.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the heightened pleading requirements and penalties under Iowa Code § 670.4A(3) did not apply because the plaintiffs were not seeking monetary damages. The court found that the individual plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing based on their proximity to the rezoned property and the nature of the proposed changes. However, the court concluded that the nonprofit organization had not established standing but should be allowed to amend its petition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "1000 Friends of Iowa v. Polk County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the District Court in favor of the City of Des Moines, in a case brought by Lime Lounge, LLC. Lime Lounge, a bar, challenged a city ordinance requiring it to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate. After receiving noise complaints, the City revoked Lime Lounge's CUP, which was upheld in a prior appeal. Lime Lounge then challenged the ordinance arguing it was preempted by Iowa Code, violated equal protection and spot zoning prohibitions. The trial court dismissed Lime Lounge's claims and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.The Supreme Court of Iowa found that the city's ordinance was not preempted by state law. Rather, it was a proper exercise of the city's zoning authority and did not create a separate local alcohol license. The Court also rejected Lime Lounge's equal protection claim, holding that the city had a legitimate purpose in imposing a CUP on specific businesses selling alcohol. Finally, the Court dismissed the claim of illegal spot zoning, as Lime Lounge failed to prove that the city had engaged in such activity. The Court thus affirmed the dismissal of Lime Lounge's challenge to the ordinance. View "Lime Lounge, Inc. v. City of Des Moines, Iowa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Wapello County in this property dispute, holding that the district court correctly concluded that the parties' agreement allowed the County to remove a group of vehicles on Landowners' property.Landowners were operating a vehicle repair and salvage business on residential property in Wapello County when the County notified Landowners of its' intent to clean up the alleged nuisance. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which Landowners agreed to allow the County to enter the property to remove any remaining "derelict vehicles" to the "satisfaction of the County" at the expiration of ninety days. At the conclusion of the ninety-day period, the County had the vehicles remaining on the property removed. Landowners brought this lawsuit, alleging breach of the agreement. The district court granted summary judgment for the County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an objective standard applied to the County's determination of its satisfaction under the agreement; and (2) the removal of the vehicles did not breach that objective standard. View "McNeal v. Wapello County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the Carroll County Board of Adjustment's denial of Appellants' application for a variance from Carroll County Airport Zoning Ordinance height restrictions, holding that this Court's opinion rejecting Appellants' preemption defense in a companion case, was fatal to Appellants' appeal of the zoning variance denial.Appellants built a grain leg on their farmland that violated the zoning ordinance's height restrictions. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made a no-hazard determination. The Carroll Airport Commission disagreed with the FAA's determination and filed an equitable action to have the grain leg declared a nuisance. After Appellants unsuccessfully sought a variance, the district court entered judgment for the Commission on its nuisance claim. In both the nuisance action and the zoning appeal Appellants argued that the FAA's no-hazard determination preempted local regulations as a matter of law. The district court rejected that defense in the nuisance action. The court of appeals and Supreme Court affirmed. The district court then affirmed the Board's denial of the variance, again rejecting the preemption defense. Because the nuisance case adjudicated the same federal preemption issue Appellants raised in this preceding, the Supreme Court's opinion rejecting Appellants' preemption defense in the nuisance action was fatal to Appellants' appeal of the zoning appeal. View "Danner v. Carroll County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court in favor of the Board of Adjustment in this action brought of developers seeking the right to build apartments on adjoining properties they owned in Iowa City and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the developers.After the City denied the developers’ plans, the developers brought actions against the City and its Board of Adjustment. The district court ruled against the developers, thus rejecting the developers’ argument that a 1987 court order allowed them to proceed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the Board, holding (1) the Board should have permitted the developers to proceed in accordance with the 1987 decree, and the developers were entitled to enforce the decree as “successors and assigns”; (2) the statute of limitations did not bar enforcement of the decree; and (3) the Board’s argument that the decree had expired by its terms because “a use [had] been developed or established” on the properties failed. View "TSB Holdings, LLC v. City of Iowa City, Iowa" on Justia Law

The Dyersville City Council voted to rezone the area containing the Field of Dreams movie site from agricultural to commercial in order to facilitate the development of a baseball and softball complex. Community members filed writs of certiorari, arguing (1) since the city council acted in a quasi-judicial function, the city council’s act of passing the ordinances was invalid; and (2) there was sufficient opposition to the rezoning to trigger a unanimous vote of the city council contained in the city code. The district court annulled the writs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the city council acted in its proper legislative function when it rezoned the subject property, and both ordinances were validly passed; and (2) no procedural or substantive errors affected the city council’s rezoning decisions. View "Residential & Agricultural Advisory Committee, LLC v. Dyersville City Council" on Justia Law

A lakefront property was zoned residential but was historically operated as a marina pursuant to special-use permits allowing nonconforming use. The Supreme Court previously held that while the use of the property as a marina was lawful under the special-use permits, the permits did not allow an expansion of use that included on-premises consumption of alcohol with live entertainment, karaoke, and full-moon parties. The owner of the property subsequently sought to operate a bar on a structure called the Fish House Lounge, which was moored to the marina's seawall but was capable of getting underway in the lake. Fish House had a liquor license from the State. The district court found the arrangement amounted to a nonconforming use of the property in violation of the City's zoning regulations and entered an injunction (1) prohibiting the use of the marina property to provide access to or parking for the bar and to provide other services for the bar; and (2) prohibiting the property owner from serving alcohol on any structure moored to the premises. The Supreme Court affirmed but directed the district court to modify its injunction to prohibit nonaccessory activities solely on the land within the geographic boundaries of the City. View "City of Okoboji v. Parks" on Justia Law

Property owners (Owners) had a lengthy dispute with Linn County over whether houses they had built were subject to the County's zoning and subdivision ordinances. In two separate decisions, the Linn County Board of Adjustment (Board) (1) denied an agricultural exemption for a six-acre parcel that included Owners' residence, and (2) denied an agricultural exemption for a second house on a forty-three-acre parcel that Owners argued was an additional farmhouse. The district court found that substantial evidence support both decisions of the Board and denied Owners' petitioners for writ of certiorari. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determinations that the houses at issue were not "primarily adopted, by reason of nature and area, for use for agricultural purposes." View "Lang v. Linn County Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court's ruling consolidating condemnation appeals from proceedings by two separate condemning authorities taking property from the same parent tract of farmland. The takings were four months apart for unrelated projects. The district court consolidated the landowner's appeals, finding common question of law or fact and a lack of prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that consolidation was an abuse of discretion, as (1) fact finders must determine just compensation for different types of takings by separate condemning authorities four months apart for unrelated projects; and (2) certain evidence in each case would be inadmissible in the other, thus creating a substantial risk of prejudice and jury confusion. Remanded for separate trials. View "Johnson v. Metro. Wastewater Reclamation Auth." on Justia Law