Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 118 / 04-1540 Filed December 22, 2006 MARTIN J. BAHL, LINDA C. BAHL, and TERRENCE G. BAHL, Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF ASBURY, IOWA, and the CITY COUNCIL OF ASBURY, IOWA, Appellees. ________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Alan L. Pearson, Judge.

Developers appeal adverse declaratory judgment holding Iowa law does not protect mobile home parks from discriminatory zoning. AFFIRMED.

Brian J. Kane and D. Flint Drake of Kane, Norby & Reddick, P.C., Dubuque, for appellants.

Stephen J. Juergens of Fuerste, Carew, Coyle, Juergens & Sudmeier, P.C., Dubuque, for appellees.

2 STREIT, Justice. "A rose may still be a rose if called by another name but not so for manufactured housing." 1 We are called on to determine whether a

"mobile home" is a "manufactured home." Developers claim the City of Asbury unlawfully discriminates against "mobile home" parks through zoning restrictions. Developers contend Iowa law requires "mobile

homes"--the kind with hitches, wheels, and/or axles--be treated the same as traditional homes built on site. We find the statute in question, which prohibits cities from discriminating against "manufactured housing," only pertains to factory-built homes that sit on permanent foundations. Because developers' proposal calls for "mobile homes," the city may treat it differently in comparison to other types of housing developments. judgment. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings Accordingly, we affirm the district court's declaratory

The Bahls own real estate in Asbury which is zoned A-1 for agricultural use. Since 1997, the Bahls have repeatedly sought to have their land rezoned in a manner that would allow them to develop a community of prefabricated 2 homes to be called "Oak Meadows." The

Bahls' rezoning applications have been resisted by neighbors and Asbury's city counsel. After the Bahls' second request for rezoning was denied in 1999, they filed suit alleging Asbury's zoning ordinance requiring "mobile

line from the ever-witty Chief Judge Alan Pearson's decision upholding Asbury's city zoning ordinance. Bahl v. City of Asbury, No. CVCV053776, slip op. at 4 (D. Iowa Sept. 13, 2004).
2We use the term "prefabricated home" because the parties disagree on the meaning of "mobile home" and "manufactured home."

1A

3 home" parks to be located only in R-4 (high density residential) districts violated Iowa Code section 414.28A (1999). Under section 414.28A, "[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." The district court held Asbury violated section 414.28A because one reason for denying the Bahls' rezoning request was the fact the proposed development was a land-leased community of manufactured housing. On appeal, we affirmed. See Bahl v. City of Asbury, 656

N.W.2d 336 (Iowa 2002) ("Bahl I"). In Bahl I, we said "the plain language of section 414.28A . . . reveals a legislative intent to require equal treatment of land-leased communities that are composed of manufactured homes with similar communities composed of site-built housing." Id. at 345. We interpreted Asbury's definition of "mobile home" in its zoning ordinance to include all types of prefabricated housing. 3 Id. at 337 n.1. In Bahl I, neither party disputed the Bahls' proposed development was a land-leased community of manufactured housing within the meaning of chapter 414. Id. Nor did the parties dispute the Bahls' project was

subject to the restrictions imposed on "mobile home" parks by the City's zoning ordinance. Id. Notably, the Iowa legislature used the terms

"manufactured housing" and "manufactured home" in chapter 414 of the
the current action, the district court noted "it appears that the Supreme Court [in Bahl I] misread the definition of `mobile home' under the city zoning ordinance." However, we need not revisit that ordinance because this appeal concerns Asbury's revised ordinance, which clearly distinguishes between "mobile homes" and "manufactured homes."
3In

4 Code while Asbury used the term "mobile home" in its zoning ordinance. Apparently, the parties were under the impression the terms could be used interchangeably. After Bahl I, Asbury amended its zoning ordinance so the terms "mobile home" and "manufactured home" are now mutually exclusive. Under the current ordinance, a "manufactured home" means a "factorybuilt structure" on a "permanent foundation," which does not have a "permanent hitch" or any "wheels or axles" permanently attached to its frame. A "mobile home" is defined as all other factory-built structures-- i.e. homes with permanent hitches, wheels and/or axles. defined "land-leased community" in its ordinance. Asbury also

A "land-leased

community" is any "tract of land under common ownership upon which 10 or more occupied manufactured homes are harbored . . . ." The amendments to Asbury's zoning ordinance require

manufactured homes be treated the same as site-built housing. Landleased communities for manufactured housing are permitted under the same zoning requirements as for site-built communities. However, under Asbury's amended zoning ordinance, mobile home parks 4 are limited to planned unit developments 5 (PUD) in R-3 or R-4 zones. The effect of the City's changes is to treat mobile home parks differently than either sitebuilt housing or manufactured housing as that term is used in Asbury's zoning ordinance.
defines a "mobile home park" as a "tract of land upon which two (2) or more occupied mobile homes are harbored, either free of charge or for revenue purposes, whether or not site-built homes or manufactured homes are also in the same development site . . . ." PUD is a district described as encouraging flexible and innovative design in the development of an appropriate site. PUDs are not typically subject to normal zoning restrictions. Instead, the project is negotiated between the developer and the city on a case-by-case basis.
5A 4Asbury

5 Because the Bahls' development proposal includes mobile homes as defined by Asbury's current zoning ordinance, the Bahls filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court asking the court to find Asbury's current zoning ordinance violates Iowa Code section 414.28A (2003). 6 The district court found in favor of Asbury. It stated: Mobile homes as defined in the city's zoning ordinance are not protected by

Download MARTIN J. BAHL, LINDA C. BAHL, and TERRENCE G. BAHL vs. THE CITY OF ASBURY, IOWA

Iowa Law