Opinion ID: 1834363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existing Use

Text: Johnson County Zoning Ordinance section 8:1.34(G) provides: Existing Uses: Existing uses designated in this article that have been established prior to the adoption of the Conditional Use Permit Requirements for said use shall be deemed an approved conditional use without permit. However, if said use is voluntarily interrupted for a period of one (1) year after the effective date of adoption of such requirements, then the re-establishment of said use shall conform to the provisions of this article. (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to the conditional use requirements in the zoning ordinance, mining and mineral extraction would be restricted from being no closer than 1000 feet from any property zoned A-2, RS, RIA, RIB, R2, or R3A. Any modification from this condition would require a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors. Two issues are of concern in applying this section: (1) did the Ernsts and lessees establish use of the site as a quarry prior to 1980; and (2) if they did establish such use, did they voluntarily interrupt the use for a span of one year following the enactment of the permit requirements?
Although we give some deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute it administers, final construction and interpretation of statutory law is a question of law for this court to decide. Good v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 368 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Iowa 1985). We construe zoning restrictions strictly in order to favor the free use of property and we will not extend such restrictions by implication or interpretation. Greenawalt v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Davenport, 345 N.W.2d 537, 545 (Iowa 1984). We also will not construe zoning restrictions in such a way that they will be arbitrary or unreasonable and we will avoid an interpretation which would make them confiscatory. Jersild v. Sarcone, 260 Iowa 288, 293, 149 N.W.2d 179, 183 (1967). A party asserting a nonconforming use carries the burden to establish the lawful and continued existence of the use by a preponderance of the evidence. City of Jewell Junction v. Cunningham, 439 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa 1989). In order to determine whether a party established a nonconforming use we will look to the realities of the business in question and the nature of its operations. County of Du Page v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co., 18 Ill.2d 479, 165 N.E.2d 310, 313 (1960). An industrial use of land is that use in which members of the trade customarily or commonly engage. Durning v. Summerfield, 314 Ky. 318, 235 S.W.2d 761, 763 (Ct.App.1951). The county and intervenors assert that Ernst and Vulcan failed to establish the quarry as an existing use because they did not perform any commercial activity at the quarry site when the county adopted the conditional use permit amendments. The county and intervenors argue that since the parties were not blasting, crushing, or selling quarry materials at the time of the adoption of the amendments, Ernst and Vulcan did not establish the use they assert. The plaintiffs argue that they had established the quarry as an existing use at the time of adoption of the conditional use amendments because all required licenses, leases, and permits were maintained at the time and have been maintained continuously since at least the early 1960s. The plaintiffs assert that due to the nature of the quarrying business, such maintenance of licenses, leases, and permits establishes an active quarrying operation. At trial, the plaintiffs presented a number of experts who testified that a quarry site which continuously maintains all required permits, licenses, and leases is considered active by industry standards. Two of the experts the plaintiffs presented testified that quarries such as the Ernst quarry, denoted country quarries, typically undergo extended periods without blasting, crushing, mineral extraction, or sales. This occurs because such quarrying operations depend on demand for the materials in question and demand is a function of whether or not operations requiring such materials are taking place near the quarry. Therefore, it is typical in the life of a country quarry to undergo periods in which the quarry operator or operators will maintain all required permits and licenses but will engage in very little commercial activity due to low demand. Such a period does not indicate the quarry is not in use, but merely demonstrates the quarry operators are waiting for market conditions which demand increased activity. Some jurisdictions hold that a party establishes an existing nonconforming use if they use the premises so that they may be known in the neighborhood as being employed for a given purpose. See, e.g., Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 23, 198 P.2d 134, 139 (1948). This test requires the party to: (1) adapt the land for the purpose; and (2) use the land within that purpose. Id. By any standard, the quarrying use of the site was clearly established in the mid-1960s when considerable blasting, crushing, and commercial sale of materials took place in conjunction with the construction of Interstate 80. Thereafter, demand for materials from the quarry fell off and the plaintiffs were not engaging in any blasting, crushing, or extraction of rock when the special permit amendments were enacted. A decrease in business does not amount to a per se abandonment of a nonconforming use. See Donham v. E.L.B., Inc., 8 Ohio Misc.2d 31, 457 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio C.P.1983). Discontinuance of one or more, but not all operations of the quarry did not amount to a voluntary discontinuance of the use. Cf. id. Due to the nature of the quarrying business, we hold that the plaintiffs did establish the quarrying operation as an existing use at the time of the amendments since the relevant parties established the quarrying use in the mid-1960s and continued its use by: (1) maintaining all requisite licenses, permits, and leases; and (2) engaging in minimal activity at the site through 1980.
Given that the plaintiffs established the quarry as an existing use prior to the enactment of the amendments and continued that use through 1980, we must next determine whether the plaintiffs ever voluntarily interrupted that use. The county asserts that in determining whether the plaintiffs interrupted the use of the site, we should not look to the plaintiffs' intent. While we agree that we should not look to the intent of the parties in determining whether they originally established the nonconforming use, the plain language of the ordinance at issue demonstrates that we must look to their intent when determining whether they interrupted the nonconforming use. As noted above, section 8:1.34(G) requires parties to acquire conditional use permits if the use is  voluntarily interrupted for a period of one (1) year after it is properly established. (Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary 1412 (6th ed. 1990) defines voluntarily as [d]one by design or intention, intentional, proposed, intended, or not accidental. Intentionally and without coercion. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, in order for the ordinance to require the plaintiffs to acquire a conditional use permit, the plaintiffs must not only have interrupted the use but the express language of the ordinance requires the existence of evidence that they intentionally interrupted the use. See Hartley v. City of Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216, 1225 (Colo.1988). The plaintiffs have maintained all requisite leases, permits, and licenses without interruption since before the conditional use permit amendments were enacted. They have also engaged in minimal activity at the site and have not demonstrated any intention of interrupting the quarry use of the site. See South County Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Charlestown, 446 A.2d 1045, 1047 (R.I.1982). Due to the nature of the quarrying business, maintenance of the required permits and licenses in combination with minimal activity demonstrates an uninterrupted operation following an initial establishment of the nonconforming use. Periods of discontinuance which are caused by circumstances beyond the control of a property owner will not cause the loss of a nonconforming use. Smith v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Cedar Rapids, 460 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Iowa 1990); City of Minot v. Fisher, 212 N.W.2d 837, 842 (N.D.1973). Therefore, even if section 8:1.34(G) did not expressly contain an intent element and the plaintiffs have interrupted the operations of the quarry, an interruption caused by decreased demand would not cause the plaintiffs to lose their nonconforming use. A decrease in demand is clearly beyond a quarry operator's control. The record does not demonstrate that the plaintiffs voluntarily interrupted the nonconforming use of the quarry since they have continuously maintained all required permits and licenses since the original establishment of the quarry. The decision of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.