Opinion ID: 2066424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Remand This Case to the Board for Further Proceedings?

Text: A. Court's authority to remand. The Board claims on appeal that the district court erred in holding that the court lacked the authority under section 414.18 to remand this case to the Board for further proceedings. We find it unnecessary to decide this issue, however, because the district court did not rely exclusively on the wording of section 414.18 to support its decision not to remand. The district court also concluded that (1) a remand would be inconsistent with the requirement of the Telecommunications Act that appeals be resolved on an expedited basis, see 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B), and (2) it would be unfair to give the Board two bites at the apple. Clearly, the district court decided a remand was inappropriate, even if permitted by the statute. More importantly, section 414.18 most certainly does not require that the district court remand a matter appealed to it. This statute expressly allows the district court to reverse the Board's action. See Iowa Code § 414.18. Therefore, we need not decide whether the district court has the power to remand this matter to the Board; it is enough that the district court's decision to reverse rather than remand was within its authority. [6] B. Court's alleged failure to determine compliance with ordinance. That brings us to the Board's argument that a remand is necessary because the district court failed to specifically determine whether U.S. Cellular's proposed tower met the requirements of the former ordinance. Under our rules of civil procedure, a district court hearing a case without a jury is required to make findings of fact and separately state its conclusions of law. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 179(a). One of the primary purposes of th[is] rule is to advise the parties and the appellate court of the bases of the trial court's decision so that the issues for appeal may be readily determined. Brichacek v. Hiskey, 401 N.W.2d 44, 46 (Iowa 1987). When the district court fails to comply with rule 179(a), a party may request that the court enlarge or amend its findings and conclusions. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 179(b). When a motion to enlarge or amend is not made, the appellate court assume[s] as fact an unstated finding that is necessary to support the judgment. Brichacek, 401 N.W.2d at 46; accord Bankers Trust Co. v. Fidata Trust Co., 452 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Iowa 1990). Here, the district court concluded that U.S. Cellular was entitled to a special permit. This conclusion was warranted only if U.S. Cellular's application complied with the governing ordinance. Although the Board filed a post-trial motion under rule 179(b), it did not request a ruling on this issue. Therefore, we presume the district court found the facts necessary to support its decision. Accordingly, we find no ground for reversal based on the district court's failure to specifically state that the proposed use complied with the requirements of the ordinance. C. Sufficiency of the evidence to support district court's finding. Finally, the Board contends that the record is devoid of evidence to support a finding that the tower and antenna conform with [the relevant] standards and principles. The zoning ordinance in effect at the time of the Board's hearing on U.S. Cellular's application empowered the Board of Adjustment to issue a special permit authorizing communication antenna operations in any district, other than an FW district, after public hearing. The procedure for obtaining such a permit was set out in the ordinance: Applications for a special permit under the terms of this section shall be accompanied by evidence concerning the feasibility of the proposed request and its effect on surrounding property and shall include a site plan defining the area to be developed for structures, the area to be developed for parking, the locations of sidewalks and driveways and the points of ingress and egress, including access streets where required, the location and heights of walls, the location and type of landscaping and the location, size, and number of signs. Before issuing any special permit for any of the above buildings or uses, the Board of Adjustment shall review the conformity of the proposed building or use with the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with recognized principles of civic design, land use planning, and landscape architecture. The Board may approve the special permit as submitted or, before approval, may require that the applicant modify, alter, adjust or amend the proposal as the Board deems necessary to the end that it preserve the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to promote public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare. Des Moines Municipal Code § 2A-27 (1996). The Board claims on appeal that U.S. Cellular failed to produce any evidence that the design and location of the proposed tower is in `conformity' with the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with recognized principles of civic design, land use planning, and landscape architecture.' (Emphasis added.) We think it is significant that the Board does not argue on appeal that there was insufficient evidence of the design and location such that the Board was unable to determine compliance with the relevant standards and principles. Thus, the only issue we must address on this appeal is whether U.S. Cellular was required to introduce evidence demonstrating how its proposal complied. We find no such requirement in the ordinance. The quoted portion of the ordinance addresses two distinct matters. The first quoted paragraph specifically sets forth the evidence that shall ... accompan[y] the application. The required evidence consists of three items: (1) the feasibility of the proposed request; (2) its effect on surrounding property; and (3) a site plan. The Board claims no deficiency in U.S. Cellular's compliance with this portion of the statute. The second quoted paragraph, in contrast to the first, is not addressed to the applicant. Rather, it instructs the Board with respect to the review it must conduct prior to issuing a special permit:  The Board of Adjustment must review the conformity of the proposed building or use with the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with recognized principles of civic design, land use planning, and landscape architecture. The Board's argument that the applicant is required to produce evidence of compliance with these standards and principles confuses the applicant's responsibilities with the Board's responsibilities. Under the terms of the ordinance, the applicant must supply the information specified in the first paragraph quoted above and then, based upon this information, the Board determines whether the proposed use complies with the relevant standards and principles. The ordinance does not require evidence of how the proposed use measures up against the Comprehensive Plan and relevant principles and we decline to read such a requirement into the ordinance. [7] Therefore, we reject the Board's argument that U.S. Cellular's application and supporting evidence was flawed in this respect. Other than the alleged deficiency we have just rejected, the Board has pointed to no other inadequacy in U.S. Cellular's submission. Significantly, the Board has not alerted us to any failure by U.S. Cellular with respect to its production of evidence concerning the feasibility of the proposed request and its effect on surrounding property or in regard to the site plan submitted to the Board. See Des Moines Municipal Code § 2A-27. Additionally, the Board has not directed our attention to any specific part of the City's comprehensive plan or any particular principles of civic design, land use planning, or landscape architecture that are violated by U.S. Cellular's proposed use. Regardless of which party bears the burden of proof in the proceedings before the Board, it is incumbent upon the Board on appeal to point out the specific error in the district court's finding that U.S. Cellular's request met the requirements of the ordinance. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996) (holding that blanket assertion on appeal that trial court's findings are not supported by the evidence is insufficient to identify error); cf. Roger Williams College v. Gallison, 572 A.2d 61, 62 (R.I.1990) (refusing to remand to the board, stating a remand for further proceedings should be based upon a genuine defect in the proceedings in the first instance, which defect was not the fault of the parties seeking the remand). The Board has failed to identify such a deficiency here. Therefore, we have no basis upon which to say that the district court erred in its factual determinations and legal conclusions with respect to U.S. Cellular's right to a permit.