Farmegg Products, Inc. v. Humboldt County, 54287

• Decision Date: 27 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 54287,54287
• Citation: 190 N.W.2d 454
• Parties: FARMEGG PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 454

190 N.W.2d 454

FARMEGG PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Appellees.

No. 54287.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 27, 1971.

Thoma, Schoenthal, Davis, Hockenberg & Wine, Des Moines, for appellant.

John P. Mansfield, Humboldt County Atty., for all appellees except Dennis Hagler and Gilbert Nissen.

MASON, Justice.

This is an equity action brought by Farmegg Products, Inc. for declaratory judgment to construe Code section 358A.2 of the County Zoning Enabling Act and to determine validity of portions of the Humboldt County Zoning Regulations insofar as those regulations relate to agricultural uses. Although on the face of the petition the action appears as a class action, plaintiff disclaims any intention to seek a decree binding on any person other than defendant-county and defendant-county officials and their successors in office. Defendants agree and the record contains no finding by the trial court the case was a class action.

The matter reaches us on plaintiff's appeal from an adverse decree of the trial court. It will not be treated as a class action.

Section 358A.2 as amended by Acts of the Sixtieth General Assembly, chapter 218, section 2 and in effect at the time material here provides:

'Farms exempt. No regulation or ordinance adopted under the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to apply to land, farm houses, farm barns, farm outbuildings or other buildings, structures, or erections which are primarily adapted, by reason of nature and area, for use for agricultural purposes, while so used; provided, however, that such regulations or ordinances which relate to any structure, building, dam, obstruction, deposit or excavation in or on the flood plains of any river or stream shall apply thereto.'

The following are relevant provisions of the Humboldt County Zoning Regulations:

'Section 7. Farm Exemptions. The provisions of these regulations shall not prohibit the use of land for agricultural purposes or the construction or use of buildings of structures incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land on which such buildings or structures are located an (sic) no zoning certificates shall be required for any such use, building or structure.

'Section 10. A Agriculture District.

'Purpose: To allow the use of land so designated for agricultural purposes only. No zoning certificates are required for such uses.

'A. Permitted Uses:

'1. Agriculture and the usual agricultural buildings and structures.

'* * *.

'10. Stables, private and public and riding academies and clubs, and other structures for housing animals or fowl. Any such structures must be located at least two hundred (200) feet from all boundary lines of the property on which located. Public stables and riding academies and clubs shall be permitted one doubleface sign on the premises not to exceed two (2) square feet per face.

'* * *.

'Section 12. R-S Suburban Residence District.

'Purpose: Residence districts that are out of current or permanent reach of any sanitary sewer system and in accordance with chapter 409 of the Iowa Code.

'A. Permitted uses.

'* * *.

'3. Permitted uses in the Agriculture District.

'* * *.'

Plaintiff seeks relief on the theory its proposed construction on and use of the land are exempt from the provisions of section 358A.2 and section 7 of the Humboldt County Zoning Regulations; that section 10(A)(10) is void to the extent it restricts structures and uses exempt under this code section and provision of the County Regulations. Farmegg asserts no zoning certificate or building permit is required for its proposed use of the land involved.

There is no contention the procedure for preparation, enactment and promulgation of the County Zoning Regulations of Humboldt county as provided in chapter 358A, Iowa Code was not followed.

The essential evidentiary facts are contained in a stipulation and the testimony of the president of plaintiff-corporation.

Plaintiff's proposed business is to produce eggs for the market by raising baby chicks in cages for 22 weeks, then moving the chicks to egg-laying houses where the eggs will be produced, processed and marketed.

Farmegg owns a plot of ground located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23 in Township 91 North, Range 29, West of the 5th P.M., Humboldt County, Iowa. It is outside the corporate limits of any city or town. Before purchase by plaintiff the real estate had been part of an 80-acre farm. The tract is approximately 600 feet in depth from the roadway and at the time of trial had been changed from F-CN district (flood plain conversation) to R-S (suburban residential district).

Plaintiff intends to erect two 40 by 400-foot steel buildings on this site of approximately four acres. Each structure would have a setback of 50 to 150 feet from the lot line with a distance of 100 feet between each building. The land would be used solely as sites for the buildings and not for the production of grain or other feed or the production of any produce other than the raising of chicks. The ground not covered by the buildings will be left in grass. Sheep will graze, not as a livestock operation but merely to keep the grass clipped. The buildings and structures proposed by plaintiff would not be constructed in or on the flood plains of any river or stream.

Under plaintiff's plan of operation approximately 40,000 chicks would be placed within each building and confined there in wire cages holding 12 birds per cage for 22 weeks. The chicks would not be allowed free either in the buildings or in the area surrounding the structures. This concept of raising pullets, we are told, is commonly called 'grazing on wire.' After 22 weeks the chicks are transferred to plaintiff's egg-laying houses presently located outside of Humboldt county. The egg-laying houses constitute the second phase of plaintiff's operation.

The court decreed the construction and usage proposed by Farmegg are not exempt from the provisions of the county zoning regulations and are subject to section 7 thereof.

Plaintiff asserts the court erred in concluding the structures and operations of Farmegg in raising chicks from one day of age to 22 weeks of age (1) are not exempt from county zoning by reason of Code section 358A.2, (2) are not exempt from county zoning by reason of section 7 of the Humboldt County Zoning Regulations and (3) are restricted by the setback provisions contained in section 10(A)(10) of the County Zoning Regulations.

Plaintiff combines its argument in support of these propositions in one division.

Its appeal presents the question whether the contemplated use of property acquired by plaintiff is to considered agricultural property because of its use, and exempt from any zoning regulation under chapter 358A.2 of the 1966 Code of Iowa.

I. Farmegg maintains its proposed use of the land clearly constitutes 'farm houses, farm barns, farm outbuildings or other buildings, structures or erections which are primarily adapted by reason of nature and area, for the use for agricultural purposes.'

The company argues that if such use is exempt the setback provisions of section 10(A)(10) are invalid and unenforceable as to the uses proposed by Farmegg.

Section 358A.2 with modifications has been a part of the county zoning chapter of the code since enacted in 1947. Defendant contends it provides the only exemption from county zoning.

We consider plaintiff's contention in light of the undisputed fact the land in question has no use in plaintiff's proposed operation other than as a site for the two-unit structures. In other words, the premises in question would be devoted entirely to raising chicks from one day of age to 22 weeks of age and would not be used in conjunction with or as an incident to ordinary farming operations as distinguished from those of a commercial nature.

Since neither section 358A.2 nor chapter 358A furnishes any definition of the term 'agricultural purposes,' we must determine what is meant by the words 'which are primarily adapted by reason of nature and area for use for agricultural purposes' contained in the first clause of this section. For purposes of determining the issue stated, supra, the key term is 'agricultural purposes.'

The authors of an annotation entitled 'Construction ans application of terms 'agricultural,' 'farm,' 'farming,' or the like, in zoning regulations' in 97 A.L.R.2d 702 at 704 say:

'The terms 'agriculture' or 'farming' or their derivatives have been construed or defined in a number of cases involving the use of such term or terms in zoning regulations. While the terms are more or less synonymous, there is authority for the view that an exemption for agricultural purposes is much broader than one for farms.' At page 706 definitions of agricultural and agriculture adopted by courts of various jurisdictions are collected.

We quote from one of the decisions cited, Hagenburger v. Los Angeles, 51 Cal.App.2d 161, 164, 124 P.,2d 345, 346--347:

'The question of what constitutes 'farming' is one which has been subjects to much comment in the decisions. The authorities which define the term are found generally in the cases involving the operation of workmen's compensation acts where 'farm labor' is exempted from the operation of the act. Webster defines 'farming' as the act or business of cultivating the land; the business of tilling the soil; to produce crops or animals on a farm. He defines a farm as a plot or tract of land devoted to the raising of domestic or other animals; as a chicken farm; a fox farm; a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes. 'Agriculture' he defines as the art or science of cultivating the ground; the art or science of the production of plants and animals useful to man or beast; it includes gardening or horticulture, fruit growing, and storage and marketing. The terms farming, husbandry and tillage are said to be synonymous of or equivalent of the term agriculture.'

So far...