Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Reversed and remanded. . The court first determined that it could not review the cdncern regarding the alleged inadequacy of proposed parking spaces at the Property because the issue was not raised at the hearing before the board. The court noted that issues must first be presented to the agency in order to be preserved for appellate review. The court next concluded that, despite the fact that the board failed to make a specific finding or conclusion in its written decision regarding the effect of the special use on property values, the board had substantially complied with the city zoning code's requirement that the board make written findings and conclusions on that issue. The zoning code required the board fiJld an applicant had met certain standards before approving an application for a special exception, in- cluding the standard that: "The specific proposed exception w[ ould] not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and w[ ould] not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." The court held that substan- tial, as opposed to literal, compliance with the written-findings re- quirement was sufficient. The court found that the board's findings substantially complied with the zoning code written-findings requirement because' the find- ings were sufficient to ensure they could be reviewed by a court to de- termine with reasonable certainty the legal and factual bases for the board's actions. The court found it was clear that the board consid- ered the reviewing standards, including the standard on the property value issue, and that the board concluded that these standards were met. Shelter House, a city planner, and several people who spoke at the hearing on the special exception application, addressed the prop- erty value issue. One board member commented directly on it as well, and other board members commented on the need to meet each of the standards, of which the property value issue was one. Moreover, the board's written conclusions of law found generally that Shelter House would not be detrimental to the overall public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In addressing the issue of whether evidence supported the board's finding that property values would not be substantially diminished or impaired, the court first clarified what its proper role was in re- viewing the board's decision. While Shelter House argued the court must review the board's findings and find them binding if supported by substantial evidence, the neighbors argued that the court was enti- tled to find facts anew and the district court's findings were binding if supported by substantial evidence. The court cited the Iowa statute (~ 414.18) governing procedural review of a city board of adjustment, which provided a hearing by the court "shall be tried de novo" (liter- 10 40