Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2010 1 Volume 4 1 No. 15 Sometime before 2008, the Archie A. and Nancy C. Martin Founda- tion submitted an application requesting that the city designate the Mar- tin house as an historic landmark. Neighboring commercial property owners, the Elys, objected to the Martin property being designated as a historical landmark. They con- tended that the designation would "make it impossible to remove the house or change its residential use." They also argued that the "end re- sult without a requirement to improve the property" —which they said was poorly maintained —was "that it would decrease the commercial value of nearby properties, including their lot." Despite the Elys' objections, the city rezoned the individual Martin property as a "Historic Preservation Overlay District." • The Elys appealed this designation. Among other things, they argued that the designation was "illegal spot zoning." The trial court concluded that the rezoning of the Martin property was not spot zoning, and "even if it were, the spot zoning was valid." The Elys appealed. . DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Iowa held that the designation of the Martin property as an historic landmark did not constitute illegal spot zoning. The court explained that "[s]pot zoning is the creation of a small is- land of property with restrictions on its use different from those imposed on surrounding property." Spot zoning is illegal, said the court, when it "results in the reclassification of one or more like tracts or similar lots for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance and out of harmony with [it]." Still, explained the court further, spot zoning is legal and valid if it is "in line with proper police power objectives and there are reason- able grounds to treat the subject property differently." Whether or not there is a reasonable basis for the spot zoning depends on the consider- ation of factors such as: "size of the spot zoned, the use of surrounding properties, the changing conditions of the area, the current use of the sub- ject property, and its suitability for alternative uses." Primarily, the court said it looked to whether the rezoned tract "has a peculiar adaptability to the new classification as compared to the surrounding property." Here, the court of appeals found that the designation of the Martin property as an historic landmark was not illegal spot zoning; it was ac- tually a "continuation of a permissible nonconforming use." This was because the owner of the Martin property had a vested right to continue using the property as a rental unit whether it was given historic land- mark status or not. Continuing this nonconforming use did not, said the court, constitute illegal spot zoning. In any case, even if this amounted to spot zoning, the court found it was valid /legal spot zoning. This was because there was "a reasonable basis for distinguishing the use of the Martin house from the surround- ing area." The property had historical and cultural significance to the © 2010 Thomson Reuters 5