Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agritourism

Bed and Breakfast Was a Permitted "Small Home Occupation"
under City Zoning Ordinances

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Meduna v. City of Crescent, 761 N.W.2d 77, 2008 WL 5234316 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008), the Iowa Court of Appeals held that a one-room bed and breakfast operated in an R-1 residential district was a permitted use under city zoning ordinances because it was a "small home occupation."

Background

The Medunas established a one-bedroom bed and breakfast in their single family residence, believing that under the city's zoning ordinances it was a "small home occupation," a permitted use in their residential zone. Id. at *1. The ordinance governing their residential neighborhood allowed for "small home occupations, provided that there shall be no signs or other evidence of such use, other than a small announcement or professional sign not over two square feet in size." Id. The Medunas sought approval from the city council, but neighbors complained to the planning and zoning commission that the bed and breakfast would bring increased traffic and reduced privacy and security by bringing unknown individuals into the neighborhood, and started a petition against it. Id. The commission recommended rejecting the Medunas' proposal, noting the opposition to it and finding that "this type of exception to the current zoning might promote other residents to develop businesses in the Residential area." Id. The city subsequently charged the Medunas with a zoning ordinance violation, and the Medunas sued seeking a declaratory judgment declaring their bed and breakfast a permitted use. Id. The district court found them guilty of a municipal infraction and their request for relief was denied, and they appealed. Id. at *2.

Arguments

The Medunas argued that the bed and breakfast was legal in their residential zone, and alternatively that the governing ordinance was unconstitutional because it was void for vagueness. Id. The city argued that the bed and breakfast was not a "small home occupation" allowed under the ordinance and that the ordinance was constitutional, and therefore the Medunas had committed a municipal infraction. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Relying on Webster's Dictionary's and Black's Law Dictionary's definitions to interpret the term "small home occupation" as used in the ordinance, the court found that the Medunas' one-bedroom bed and breakfast was "a pursuit limited in scope which they carried on in their dwelling place" and thus a permitted use in their residential zone. Id. at *3. The district court had concluded that the bed and breakfast was not allowed in the R-1 residential zone because such boarding houses were only specifically provided for in R-3 zoning ordinances, but the appellate court found that just because a use was permitted in one district did not mean the council could not permit that use in another district as well. Id. at *4. Having found that the one-bedroom bed and breakfast was a permitted use, the court reversed the finding that the Medunas had committed a municipal infraction and the district court's cease-and-desist order. Id. at *5.

The case was decided on December 17, 2008.