Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Renewable Energy

Substantial Compliance with Public Hearing and
Notice Requirements for Rezoning
Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Vanwyk Farms, L.C. v. Poweshiek County Board of Supervisors, No. 07-1958, 2009 WL 778086 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009), the Iowa Court of Appeals held that a county board of supervisors had substantially complied with notice and public hearing requirements for rezoning, and upheld the county's decision to rezone agricultural land to industrial to allow for construction of an ethanol facility.

Background

Citizens brought this action challenging Poweshiek County's decision to convert rural agricultural zoned land to industrial zoning. Id. at *1. After several public hearings, the County Board of Supervisors ("Board") ultimately rezoned certain agricultural zoned land to industrial and entered into an agreement for private development of an ethanol facility. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs had petitioned the Board to rezone their property from agricultural to residential, but the Board denied their application. Id. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the Board's decisions, but the district court dismissed their claims, and the plaintiffs appealed. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the Board failed to follow proper notice requirements for the rezonings, because the notices of the hearings did not express district boundaries in terms of streets or roads as required by Iowa Code § 335.6 and because the notice of one hearing was published a few days outside of the timeframe required by Iowa Code § 331.305. Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holdings

Iowa Code § 335.6 states,

[A] regulation, restriction, or boundary shall not become effective until after a public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published as provided in section 331.305. The notice shall state the location of the district affected by naming the township and section, and the boundaries of the district shall be expressed in terms of street or roads if possible.
Id.

Iowa Code § 331.305 provides that "if notice of an election, hearing, or other official action is required by this chapter, the board shall publish the notice at least once, not less than four nor more than twenty days before the date of the election, hearing, or other action, in one or more newspapers." Id. The County had not strictly complied with those requirements, but the court noted that "with regard to chapter 335 notice requirements, section 331.605 states, '[a] county shall substantially comply with a procedure established by a state law for exercising a county power.'" Id. at *4. The court found that the County had substantially complied with the chapter 335 notice and hearing requirements because the notices provided were "reasonably sufficient to inform the public of the essence and scope of the zoning regulation under consideration." Id. at *5. The court further found that the County had complied with the property description requirements of § 335.6, because that section required such descriptions only "if possible," and a description of streets and roads was not possible due to the rural nature of the property. Id. The court also noted that before the Board entered into the private developer agreement, it had evaluated the incentives and benefits for the county, and "the construction plans were not inadequate and intended to meet Iowa Department of Natural Resources requirements," and therefore found no error with the agreement. Id. at *7. The court further held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the Board acted "unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously" in rezoning the property for development, and found that substantial evidence supported its decision to deny the plaintiffs' rezoning request. Id. at *8. In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court's decision on all issues and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. Id. at *9.

The case was decided on March 26, 2009.



 

This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-8201-9-115. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The National Agricultural Law Center is a federally funded research institution located at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville.

Web site: www.NationalAgLawCenter.org | Phone: (479)575-7646 | Email: NatAgLaw@uark.edu