Opinion ID: 1309738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: special use classification of mortuaries as spot zoning

Text: XVII. Plaintiffs' final assignment is patently without merit. Essentially, we are told (1) mortuaries are strictly commercial uses; (2) they should be classified as such, rather than special uses; and (3) the present special use classification constitutes an arbitrary and discriminatory zoning enactment. While plaintiffs' argument concludes the West Des Moines zoning ordinance in effect sanctions spot zoning, therefore violates the comprehensive plan requirement of Code ch. 414, the real complaint made is best summarized in this excerpt from plaintiffs' brief: There is no rational reason why mortuaries cannot be built in commercial districts, as is allowed under the present zoning ordinance. No sound compulsion of planning or community necessity requires special use treatment for mortuaries. Their inclusion as a special use is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory, and improper. This contention is plainly addressed to the validity of Art. XXI, § 4(L), classifying mortuaries as special uses. Thus, our resolution of the issue is guided by Jaffe v. City of Davenport, 179 N.W.2d 554, 555 (Iowa 1970) where we said: [Zoning ordinances] are entitled to the same presumption of validity as other legislative enactments and if their reasonableness is fairly debatable, the court will not interfere with the action of the zoning authority by substituting its judgment for that of the legislative body. (emphasis supplied). Bearing this standard in mind, Bauman v. Piser Undertakers Company, supra, 180 N.E.2d at 708, thus aptly disposes of the question at hand: The matter of locating funeral homes is within the legislative discretion, and the propriety of such action is a debatable question for determination by the City Council and not by the courts. More directly in point is this statement in Anderson v. Sawyer, 23 Md.App. 612, 329 A.2d 716, 724 (1974): By defining a funeral home as an appropriate use by way of special exception, the legislature    has, in essence, declared that such uses, if they satisfy the other specific requirements of the ordinance, do promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community. As part of the comprehensive zoning plan this legislative declaration shares in a presumption of validity and correctness which the courts will honor. [Citations]. (emphasis supplied). See also City of Atlanta v. Awtry & Lowndes Co., 205 Ga. 296, 53 S.E.2d 358, 361-362 (1949); 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 174, n. 74; 8 McQuillin, supra, § 25.178a, at 612-613. Further discussion is unnecessary. Trial court correctly resolved the instant assignment. We now hold plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating illegality on any of the assigned grounds. AFFIRMED.