Harms v. City of Sibley
| Decision Date | 12 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-0728.,03-0728. |
| Citation | 702 N.W.2d 91 |
| Parties | Kenneth HARMS and Myrna Harms, Husband and Wife, Appellees, v. The CITY OF SIBLEY, A Municipal Corp., Appellant, and Joe's Ready Mix, Inc., An Iowa Corp., and Arlon Sandbulte, Appellants, Joe's Ready Mix, Inc. and Arlon Sandbulte, Appellants, v. The City Of Sibley, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
G. Daniel Gildemeister of Gildemeister & Keane, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant City of Sibley.
Bradley K. De Jong and Michael J. Jacobsma of Klay, Veldhuizen, Bindner, De Jong & Jacobsma, P.L.C., Orange City, for appellees Kenneth Harms and Myrna Harms.
Lloyd W. Bierma of Oostra & Bierma, P.L.C., Sioux Center, for appellants Joe's Ready Mix, Inc. and Arlon Sandbulte.
In this inverse condemnation and nuisance case, we consider two issues. First, did the City of Sibley (City) take the property of Kenneth and Myrna Harms (Harms) without the payment of just compensation in violation of federal and state constitutional provisions when the City rezoned property to allow the construction and operation of a ready mix plant in close proximity to the Harms' property? Second, does substantial evidence support a finding that Arlon Sandbulte (Sandbulte), owner of the property on which the ready mix plant was constructed, is personally liable to the Harms for a nuisance created by Joe's Ready Mix, Inc. (Joe's Ready Mix) even though he leased the property and plant to Joe's Ready Mix?
Contrary to the district court's decision but in accord with the court of appeals decision, we conclude that the City did not take the Harms' property in violation of federal and state constitutional provisions. We also conclude the court of appeals correctly decided that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Sandbulte is personally liable for the nuisance. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.
A. The layout of the properties. An understanding of the layout of the properties involved in this litigation puts this dispute in context. County Road A-22 is the dividing line between the Harms' property and Joe's Ready Mix. The Harms live to the north of County Road A-22, and Joe's Ready Mix sits to the south of it. A 201-foot buffer exists between the plant and County Road A-22. Highway 60 is the closest road to the east of the Harms' property, and it is about one-half mile away. Olive Avenue borders Joe's Ready Mix and the Harms' property to the west. Olive Avenue is blacktop north of County Road A-22 (past the Harms' property) and gravel south of County Road A-22 (past Joe's Ready Mix). The Harms do not live within the city limits of Sibley, but the site of Joe's Ready Mix is within the city limits.
B. Undisputed facts. The parties agree the following facts are undisputed. In approximately September of 2000, representatives of Joe's Ready Mix, of Sioux Center, Iowa, approached the City to propose building a ready mix plant in Sibley on a parcel of land that was zoned "light industrial" (LI). An application for a building permit was reviewed by the zoning administrator and was denied. The zoning administrator concluded that the property would have to be zoned "heavy industrial" (HI) to accommodate the request. The owner appealed to the board of adjustment, and that appeal was unsuccessful.
On December 26, 2000, the city planning and zoning commission met to consider a request by the owner of the land, Sandbulte, to rezone the property to HI. The commission recommended rezoning.
A written protest was filed with the Sibley city clerk and was signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property sought to be rezoned. The city attorney, interpreting Iowa Code section 414.5 (1999), concluded that a "super majority" (three-fourths) vote of the city council was required to accomplish rezoning.
A city council meeting was held January 31, 2001. At that meeting, the vote was three to two in favor of rezoning. The city attorney explained that the motion had been defeated. At the same time, the city attorney stated that the developer had submitted a new request for changing the zoning to HI. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval of that request on the same day.
The second request to rezone differed from the first request in that the property sought to be rezoned was more than 200 feet from the property line of the Harms, the parties who filed the written protest. The new property sought to be rezoned HI was 201 feet from the center of the road dividing the Harms' property from the property to be rezoned.
After proper notices of a public hearing to be held on February 20, 2001, the city council heard presentations from concerned citizens and accepted a petition from the Harms' attorney against rezoning. At that time, the council voted three to two in favor of rezoning. This meant the ordinance was adopted because a super majority vote for rezoning was no longer required.
On April 23, 2001, the Harms and Gary John Boor sued the City. Count I of the petition sought a declaratory ruling that the ordinance rezoning Sandbulte's property from LI to HI was invalid because it was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. Count II was an inverse condemnation claim. In this count, the plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation under the federal and state constitutions and sought damages because of the taking. Count III sought a declaratory ruling that the ordinance constituted a nuisance and sought injunctive relief enjoining the City from issuing any building permits for the construction and operation of heavy industrial buildings.
On April 27, 2001, Sandbulte, as owner of the rezoned property, applied for a building permit for construction of a concrete plant on the rezoned property. On May 2 Sandbulte applied for a building permit for construction of a bulk cement storage silo on the rezoned property. The zoning administrator issued the requested permits on May 4 and May 22, respectively.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs amended their petition on May 11 to include Joe's Ready Mix, Inc. as a defendant and to add an additional count that sought a temporary restraining order enjoining Joe's Ready Mix from constructing and operating a heavy industrial ready mix plant.
Following a hearing, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order. The court did so on two grounds: First, the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law because they could have filed a certiorari action challenging the validity of the ordinance, an action the plaintiffs failed to pursue. Second, the plaintiffs failed to name the real party in interest — Sandbulte — the one who applied for the building permits.
Thereafter, the City and Joe's Ready Mix filed motions for summary judgment. In the meantime, the plaintiffs amended their petition pursuant to court order to include Sandbulte as a defendant. In addition, the district court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their petition to allege a count against Sandbulte enjoining him from "any heavy industrial operations on" the rezoned property. The amended petition also requested that Sandbulte compensate the plaintiffs "for their loss in connection with the operation of the heavy industrial plant."
Joe's Ready Mix and Sandbulte then filed for indemnification against the City in the event the plaintiffs recovered against them.
Eventually, the district court denied the motions for summary judgment filed by the City and Joe's Ready Mix. Thereafter the district court allowed the plaintiffs to file a third amended petition, which added a count for nuisance against Sandbulte. The amended petition also sought punitive damages against Joe's Ready Mix and Sandbulte.
The parties tried the case to the court. Before trial, Boor filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
At the time of trial on August 1, 2002, the Harms had lived on their property for thirty-seven years. Testimony revealed that the Harms' home was "quite well cared for." Appraisers offered their opinions on the value of the Harms' property as is and as if Joe's Ready Mix did not exist across the road.
Sandbulte is the president and a major shareholder of Joe's Ready Mix. He "oversee[s] all operations." Sandbulte owns the property upon which Joe's Ready Mix is situated and leases the land to it. Sandbulte bought the property so he could put a ready mix plant on it.
Myrna Harms testified extensively about the noise, dust, and traffic problems since the plant began operations in November 2001. She also testified about the plant's bright lights that shine into her bedroom at night. Kenneth Harms also testified about the dust, noise, traffic, and lighting problems.
Following trial, the district court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. The court adopted the agreement of undisputed facts recited earlier in this opinion and made additional findings of fact. The court found that the location of the ready mix plant resulted in damages to the Harms and diminution in their property value. The court, however, found that the Harms had failed to prove the rezoning ordinance was invalid.
As for the nuisance claim, the court found "that the interference [dust, noise, traffic congestion and increased truck traffic near the Harms' property] caused by the operation of the ready mix plant is intense and severe." The court concluded that "[u]nder these circumstances ... the operation of the ready mix plant is a nuisance and that the Harms are entitled to recover damages for a nuisance."
The court next considered the Harms' inverse condemnation claim. The court found and concluded as follows:
[T]he operation of the plant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. State
...and its responsibility for the land on which the runways were built. Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 60.] Similarly, in Harms v. City of Sibley, 702 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2005), the Iowa Supreme Court was called upon to determine if the City of Sibley's rezoning ordinance had worked a taking of private ......
-
Brakke v. Iowa Dep't of Natural Res.
..., 784 N.W.2d at 11. The standard of review for constitutional claims, including with respect to takings, is de novo. Harms v. City of Sibley , 702 N.W.2d 91, 96 (Iowa 2005) ; Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of West Des Moines , 636 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 2001).III. Statutory Authority of the ......
-
Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Bd.
...provision," but "not binding." Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. , 711 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 2006) ; see also Harms v. City of Sibley , 702 N.W.2d 91, 97 (Iowa 2005).The Lamb petitioners deny that the Dakota Access pipeline furthers a constitutionally valid public use. They contend th......
-
K & W Elec., Inc. v. State
...without a formal condemnation proceeding. Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 711 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 2006); Harms v. City of Sibley, 702 N.W.2d 91, 97 (Iowa 2005); 9 Patrick J. Rohan & Melvin A. Reskin, Nichols on Eminent Domain § 34.03[1], at 34-45 (rev.3d ed.2005). Generally, a ta......