Court Opinion

ID: 9658748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:11:07.61926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:58.715218
License: Public Domain

STREIT, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority that the ultimate issue in this case is a matter of statutory interpretation. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 414.28A. The majority interprets section 414.28A to mean mobile home parks must be allowed in any district in which “similar communities of site-built housing are allowed.” Given this interpretation, it concludes the Asbury ordinance is illegal under 414.28A because the ordinance assigns mobile home parks to the high-density residential district. The majority adds meaning to this statute where the .plain language shows it was not intended by the legislature.
The plain and unambiguous language of the statute is ignored under the guise of providing statutory interpretation. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, resort to extrinsic aids is unwarranted. We need only look to the plain language of the statute to determine whether the ordi*346nance, in assigning mobile home parks to R-4 districts, violates section 414.28A. The statute provides, in part,
A city shall not adopt or enforce zoning or subdivision regulations or other ordinances which disallow or make infeasible the plans and specifications of land-leased communities because the housing within the land-leased community will be manufactured housing.
Iowa Code § 414.28A (1999). Before we examine the meaning of this section, we must look to the terms of the statute to determine its scope. Namely, we look to what is a “land-leased community” and what constitutes “manufactured housing.”
Iowa Code section 414.28 defines a manufactured home as,
a factory-built structure which ... is to be used as a place for human habitation, but which is not constructed or equipped with a permanent hitch or other device allowing it to be moved other than for the purpose of moving to a permanent site, and which does not have permanently attached to its body or frame any wheels or axles.
Iowa Code § 414.28. A land-leased community is “any site, lot, field, or tract of land under common ownership upon which ten or more occupied manufactured homes are harbored, either free of charge or for revenue purposes.... ” Iowa Code § 414.28A. Given these statutory definitions, the simple reading of section 414.28A provides: a city shall not enforce zoning or subdivision regulations or other ordinances that prevent the construction of ten or more manufactured homes upon a site simply because the site will consist of factory-built, manufactured homes. By assigning mobile home parks to R-4 districts, the ordinance does allow — and does not disallow or make infeasible — the construction of mobile home parks in the City. The statute contains no other language of limitation upon the actions of a city in regulating the development of land-leased communities.
The plain language of this section supports the conclusion that it protects land-leased communities only in so far as a municipality cannot ban mobile home parks from its districts. The statute makes it illegal for a municipality to reject or make infeasible a proposed land-leased community because it will contain manufactured housing, including mobile home parks. This statute protects manufactured homes in a limited fashion because the City still has power to regulate or place reasonable restrictions upon manufactured housing developments. See Huff v. City of Des Moines, 244 Iowa 89, 94, 56 N.W.2d 54, 57 (1952) (regulation and restriction of mobile home parks is a “legitimate exercise of police power”).
None of the language of this statute indicates that in order to comply with the section a city must allow mobile home parks in more than just the R-4 district. This section does not say the ordinance must allow mobile home parks in every zoning district. It does not say the ordinance must subject mobile home parks to the same conditions as it does all other “similar communities of site-built housing.” It does not act as an absolute prohibition on the City’s power to regulate the land under its control simply because a mobile home park is involved.
The majority avoids the simple reading of the statute and instead engages in an analysis of clear and unambiguous language. It attempts to characterize section 414.28A as a non-discriminatory or “equal treatment” statute that protects the civil rights of mobile home park developers. It does this by making a comparison between mobile home parks and “site-built houses in land-leased communities.” Such a creature does not exist under this statute. The plain meaning does not support the *347majority’s conclusion that the legislature intended that mobile home parks be treated in the same fashion as are site-built homes in similar communities. Rather the statute does nothing more than prevent a city from outright prohibiting mobile home parks.
The majority contends its holding does not mean the City must allow mobile home parks in all zoning districts, but only in some. Despite this declaration, it is not clear where the City can limit the placement of mobile home parks. In fact, the inescapable conclusion from the majority’s opinion is that the City of Asbury must allow mobile home parks to be constructed in any and all of its districts. Such a result is beyond both the force of section 414.28A’s prohibition and the legislative intent behind this statute.
The Asbury ordinance has not disallowed Bahls from building this mobile home park. It has not made Bahls’ plan infeasible. Rather, Bahls are free to build it in the area in which mobile home parks are permitted, i.e. R-4. To arrive at the majority’s result, section 414.28A would need to have an additional sentence reading, “A city shall not impose restrictions or conditions upon a land-leased community comprised of manufactured housing which are different than those imposed upon site-built housing in similar communities.” Because the statute does not mention site-built housing, its application is restricted to factory-built, manufactured homes.
In general, Iowa Code sections 414.28 and 414.28A are exceptions to the general zoning authority of a city.
A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that an exception in a statute, contrary to its general enacting clause, should be strictly construed and all doubts and implications should be resolved in favor of the general provision or rule rather than the exception.
Menke Hardware, Inc. v. City of Carroll, 474 N.W.2d 579, 580 (Iowa 1991). Because we must strictly construe these exemption statutes, we may not read into section 414.28A a requirement that the City must allow mobile home parks in every zoning district in which all other land-leased communities are allowed.
A municipality has authority to regulate the area of land within its control. Iowa Code § 414.1. Iowa Code section 414.1 expressly grants cities the power
to regulate and restrict the heights, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.
Such regulation is intended to promote the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare, including the maintenance of property values. Plaza Recreational Ctr. v. Sioux City, 253 Iowa 246, 251-52, 111 N.W.2d 758, 762-63 (1961). Derived from this general zoning authority, the City has authority to regulate and restrict mobile home parks as a “legitimate exercise of police power.” Huff, 244 Iowa at 94, 56 N.W.2d at 57.
Although mobile homes may serve a residential use, they are sufficiently different from other types of housing so that there is a rational basis for placing different requirements upon them. Thus, it is within the legislative discretion of a township to place mobile homes in other than purely residential districts, although the restrictions placed on mobile homes cannot amount to exclusionary zoning.
83 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 254, 220-21 (1992).
*348Given the City’s general zoning authority, it assigned mobile home parks to R-4 zoned districts. In contrast, an individual mobile home may be placed in any zoning district under the ordinance. Mobile home parks are assigned to R-4 districts because of their high density. I would find the district court erred in finding that the City, by assigning mobile home parks to R-4 districts, made them high density by definition. In sum, the ordinance permits mobile homes, including manufactured homes in all zoning districts. It restricts the parks to R^4 districts. Because the ordinance does not ban the development of mobile home parks from all zoning districts, it is not in violation of Iowa Code sections 414.28 and 414.28A.
I also disagree with the majority’s finding that the city council denied Bahls’ application for rezoning based upon the fact that the proposed development consisted of mobile homes. The majority bases its conclusion upon one factor only — the inflammatory comments of neighbors regarding the proposed mobile home park. Based only upon the neighbors’ offensive language, the majority impermissibly ascribes bad motive to the city council’s denial of Bahls’ petition for rezoning. Other than the odious and sometimes loony comments themselves, there is no evidence in the record to indicate the city council made its decision based on the neighbors’ comments.
All of the evidence considered by the city council indicates its decision to deny the application for rezoning was based on the same considerations the city council would apply to all other applications for rezoning. The ordinance states the regulations set by the ordinance shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure on land. There are no exceptions to this rule. The ordinance specifically provided the proposed project must comply with the City’s long-range comprehensive plan. See ordinance § 3-13.4(1)(D). The evidence shows several grounds upon which the city council could have concluded the proposed project did not comply with the comprehensive plan and ordinance. Among the evidence presented to the city council, a professional city planner, two subdivision developers, a home builder, and a professional realtor addressed this particular rezoning issue. The following are the considerations upon which the city council could have denied the Bahls’ rezoning request.
First, the city council considered the overall size and density of the proposed development. Referring to city planning texts, the city council determined five dwelling units per gross acre is considered the highest density and one dwelling unit as the lowest density. Bahls’ proposed development provided for anywhere between 3.5 and 3.7 units per gross acre. The proposed development would have created a much greater density of homes than surrounding subdivisions. The size of the proposed development is approximately 300 homes. At the time of the Bahls’ proposal there were approximately 700 homes in the City of Asbury. Bahls’ development would increase the number of total homes in the City by thirty percent. The city council also considered the relative size of the proposed lots. The proposed size was considerably smaller than that of existing lots. The area of each new lot would be 5000 square feet whereas the housing units currently in the area are required to have 7000 square foot lots. See ordinance § 3-5.6.
The council considered evidence regarding the estimated cost of the new housing units and the planned size of streets in the proposed development. Each new unit would cost on average $32,500 in a neighborhood where nearly all 700 homes were *349estimated to be worth at least $100,000. The record reflects most of the homes surrounding the proposed development were valued at over $200,000. The Bahls’ proposed development included streets twenty-eight feet wide in violation of the thirty-one foot minimum requirement in the ordinance.
In general, the city council had ample evidence to consider regarding the ultimate result of constructing the new housing units. The impact of putting 300 housing units on 110 acres of land would be significant. It would create substantial additional traffic and noise in the area. The size of the development would directly impact the City’s fire, police, water, and sewer services. Moreover, the city council was told of claims of the Bahls’ generally poor record of maintenance on their properties. As the Bahls proposed to complete the project in seven phases, the council could have found the project might ultimately fail and be left partially completed.
Bahls’ application was denied based upon the same factors the city council would apply to all other zoning applications. The city council concluded the proposed development violated the ordinance and comprehensive zoning plan. In doing so, the city council determined that rezoning the Bahls’ property was not in the best interests of the community. 101A C.J.S. Zoning & Land Planning § 62, at 246 (1979). Because the reasonableness of the denial of the rezoning application is fairly debatable, the city council’s discretion in this matter is controlling. See Perkins, 636 N.W.2d at 67. I would reverse the district court’s ruling that the Asbury zoning ordinance violates section 414.28A.