Considered by DANILSON, C.J., and VOGEL and POTTERFIELD, JJ.
DANILSON
, Chief Judge.
The Dubuque County Board of Supervisors appeals from the district court's ruling that it acted illegally in denying Mark and Lori Rinikers' application to have part of their nine acres rezoned from A–1 (agricultural) to A–2 (agricultural residential). A property owner has no absolute right to have property rezoned, the Board properly relied upon one of the criteria to deny rezoning, and the district court erred in sustaining the writ of certiorari. We therefore reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.In 2013, Dubuque County amended its zoning classification ordinances. The minutes from a public hearing state:
PUBLIC HEARING—AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 1—ZONING ORDINANCE—DUBUQUE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES (“A–2” AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT)
Chair Manternach opened the public hearing.
Zoning Administrator Anna O'Shea said this amendment will assist the Zoning Department with the change in the agricultural exemption process and will allow existing homes in the A–1 district to be platted off with a minimum of one acre. Ms. O'Shea said it will also allow new residential homes in the A–1 district if shown for agricultural related purposes, eliminate the five acre requirement and regulate the summer cottages which will now be put into the special A–2 district and will be allowed to be in a one acre parcel. Ms. O'Shea said setbacks will be the same as the R–2 district.
Ms. O'Shea also answered questions of the Board.
Larry Decker, 17047 Higginsport Road, Bernard said he appreciates what the Board is doing in preserving agriculture land, but feels it needs to be weighed against a person's civil rights and sees problems with this amendment.
Following a public hearing, a motion carried unanimously to adopt the following amendment, which in relevant part states:
1–15.3 “A–2” AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
a. PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES
(1) Farm homes, currently in existence, on property for which there is a need to separate the residence from the farm property. An explanation of the need to plat off the existing farm home must be put in writing and included with the rezoning application ....
(2) Single Family Dwelling, if all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The proposed residence is needed to continue or promote farming operations in the area; and
(b) The proposed residence does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and
(c) The proposed use is in accordance with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; and
(d) No single family dwelling will be allowed if a hardship or nuisance relative to any adjoining property owner is demonstrated ....
(3) Summer cottages ....
(4) Household or home occupations as defined herein.
The instant action arises as a result of Mark and Lori Rinikers' application to rezone A–1 property to A–2. On November 26, 2013, the Rinikers purchased a nine-acre lot in Dubuque County. The Rinikers wished to separate from the nine acres 1.08 acres with an existing house and have it rezoned A–2. It was their intent to sell the rezoned property to their son, Brian Riniker, and construct a new residence on the remaining approximately eight acres.
The Dubuque County Zoning Commission held a hearing and unanimously passed a motion to approve the Rinikers' rezoning request. The zoning commission notes state:
Mr. Riniker explained that they purchased this property with an older existing farm home on the property. The home has too many steps for him and his wife to navigate as they get older, so they decided to construct a new retirement house with no steps.
Ms. O'Shea stated that this property was a 40–acre parcel that ... in 2002 the farm home was platted off with 8 acres.[1] Now, they want to plat off just the farm home with one acre and keep the seven (7) acre balance for another new farm home. Ms. O'Shea explained further that the Rinikers have applied for the Farm Exemption as it stands now, so they will be using the current farm exemption process for the proposed new dwelling and the proposed A–2, District for the original farm dwelling.
Mr. Goodmann asked if the Board is considering separation of the existing farm home now?
Ms. O'Shea responded yes, that the proposed A–2, District would be for the existing farm dwelling with one acre of ground, and the balance would remain in A–1 for a future farm dwelling to be constructed this summer.
Mr. Lindblom asked how does one get a farm exemption on eight (8) acres or is he missing something?
Ms. O'Shea explained that the current farm exemption qualification is five acres or more of A–1 zoned ground with some kind of agricultural use of the property.
Mr. Goodmann stated that the necessary exemptions were obtained and this request is what the A–2 district was designed to be used for.
A motion was made by Mr. Schmitt, seconded by Ms. Klostermann and passed unanimously to approve the rezoning request. Vote: 6–0
....
Mr. Lindblom asked why we have not gotten rid of the five acre minimum regarding the farm exemption. Ms. O'Shea explained that the Board of Supervisors had just a few issues remaining with the farm exemption so she would bring a few ideas to next month's meeting for discussion and the Board can decide how to proceed.
The Rinikers' rezoning request was forwarded to the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors. Mark stated to the Board,
My wife and I bought the property that is in question so ... we went and s [aw] Anna and asked her what the rules were that were in place at the time and she said that these are the forms that we fill out. So I think that we did everything according to standard protocol at this time. Our intent was to ... the reason that we are zoning that off is ... the house is not suitable for retirement for my wife or myself in later years. So we were hoping to build our retirement home while I am still young enough to pay for it. So but that is our main reason. I was going to try to get out of some of the heavier carpenter work and get into a little light farming. You know with the grandkids and such so that's our plans there.
The chair of the Board explained that the intent of the A–2 agricultural residential classification was “to be able to split the farm from the house and more or less keep more acres in production,” not to allow “subdividing ag ground.” Another board member stated:
It's just that this was not what the A2 was intended to do. This is the unforeseen consequences of trying to make things better. In this instance we are going 180 degrees of what we are trying to accomplish and that was to preserve farm ground and not to turn it into subdivisions and you know what you're doing under the present rules appear to be 100% ok although not what we were trying to accomplish. If we wouldn't have changed the rules at all, you would not be able to even think about splitting this piece of property because it's under 10 acres. You would have had to have 2, 5 acre plots in order to do that and that would have been ok but what you are doing here is you have 9 acres you are going to take another acre off you have 8 acres left and then [you're] gonna build another house on it. Well in theory you can knock another acre off that with the house and put another lot in it. That is not what we are trying to do we don't wanna a minor subdivision going on in this really nice farm ground here. So that is a dilemma that we have to deal with to try and figure out where we are at.
The chair explained the Board had previously denied a similar application for rezoning.
Further discussion included these comments:
[Board member] Daryl Klein: I guess just something maybe clarified, just a little bit, if we hadn't tried to be proactive in setting up this A2 designation to try to get smaller parcels in ag land and we just had just the A1, this parcel would never have qualified for a
...
