Bontrager Auto Service, Inc. Skay Automotive Service, Inc. Brian K. Decoster Rogers Rental, Llc Marlys Breese The Breese Co. Inc. Gregg R. Redlin Eugene F. Fisher Erin K. Fisher Edward I. Schmucker K & G Michael A. Mcniel, Todd Davis, Carmen Davis, Sand Road Investors Keith L. Miller Debra S. Miller Paul M. Kennedy, Jr. Mary Frances Kennedy William B. Kron, Jr. And Derrold M. Foster, Appel

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 22 / 05–1064
Filed March 7, 2008
BONTRAGER AUTO SERVICE, INC.; SKAY AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE,
INC.; BRIAN K. DeCOSTER; ROGERS RENTAL, LLC; MARLYS BREESE;
THE BREESE CO. INC.; GREGG R. REDLIN; EUGENE F. FISHER;
ERIN K. FISHER; EDWARD I. SCHMUCKER; K & G; MICHAEL A.
McNIEL, TODD DAVIS, CARMEN DAVIS, SAND ROAD INVESTORS;
KEITH L. MILLER; DEBRA S. MILLER; PAUL M. KENNEDY, JR.; MARY
FRANCES KENNEDY; WILLIAM B. KRON, JR.; and DERROLD M.
FOSTER,
Appellees,
vs.
THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
Appellant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HILLTOP MOBILE HOME COURT,
Appellee,
vs.
THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and SHELTER HOUSE
COMMUNITY SHELTER AND TRANSITION SERVICES,
Appellants.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, David M.
Remley, Judge.
Board of Adjustment and applicant for special exception to zoning
regulation appeal district court’s decision sustaining objectors’ petitions for
writ of certiorari and reversing board’s approval of special exception.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2
Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney, Iowa City, for
appellant Iowa City Board of Adjustment.
Timothy J. Krumm and Anne E. Daniels of Meardon, Sueppel &
Downer P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant Shelter House Community Shelter
and Transition Services.
Gregg Geerdes, Iowa City, for appellees Bontrager Auto Service, Inc.
et al.
Raymond M. Tinnian, Kalona, for appellee Hilltop Mobile Home Court.
3
TERNUS, Chief Justice.
The appellant, Iowa City Board of Adjustment, approved the
application of appellant, Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition
Services, for a special exception to a local zoning regulation to allow Shelter
House to construct transient housing in a commercial district. The
appellees, opponents of Shelter House’s application, successfully challenged
the board’s decision in district court. Although the district court rejected
the objectors’ contention the board had failed to make the necessary factual
findings, the court ruled there was not substantial evidence to support the
board’s finding that the proposed transient housing would not substantially
diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The court also
determined the board had improperly interpreted and applied the parking-
space requirements governing transient housing.
The board and Shelter House appeal the district court’s reversal of the
board’s approval of Shelter House’s application. We agree with the district
court that the board made sufficient factual findings, but conclude error
was not preserved on the adequacy of the parking spaces. Because we
think there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that
property values would not be adversely affected, we reverse the judgment of
the district court and remand this case for entry of a judgment affirming the
board’s decision.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Shelter House is a nonprofit corporation that has operated transient
housing on North Gilbert Street in Iowa City for approximately twenty years.
The facility on Gilbert Street is approved for housing twenty-nine transient
persons at one time. It was undisputed the shelter has to turn homeless
persons away due to a lack of space.
4
In 2004 Shelter House sought to build a new two-story facility at 429
Southgate Avenue that would provide transitional housing for up to seventy
people. This site is zoned intensive commercial, which permits transient
housing by special exception. In order to approve a special exception, the
board must find the applicant meets the standards set forth for the specific
proposed exception, as well as seven general standards to the extent they
are applicable.
The Iowa City Department of Planning and Community Development
reviewed Shelter House’s application and recommended approval.
Subsequently, the board held a well-attended meeting at which
approximately thirty-seven persons spoke. The main concern of objectors
was the possibility of increased criminal activity in the neighborhood, a
concern the proponents of the special exception attempted to refute. There
was also some evidence elicited relating to property values, with the
witnesses for and against the application disagreeing on whether property
values would decrease due to the construction of transient housing in the
affected neighborhood. Following public comments, the board approved the
special exception on a vote of three to one. A written decision granting the
application was filed several days later.
Thereafter, neighboring landowners filed petitions for writ of certiorari
in the district court, which were consolidated.1 They claimed the board
acted illegally for several reasons, three of which are pertinent to this
appeal:
a. The Board of Adjustment acted arbitrarily and capriciously
when it granted the application even though the evidence
before the Board was that the requested special use would
substantially diminish or impair the property values in the
neighborhood of the requested special exception and that the
proposed special exception would be injurious to the use and
1Shelter House was permitted to intervene.
5
enjoyment of other property in the area. Under these
circumstances the actions of the Board are a violation of Iowa
City Ordinance 14–6W–2(B)(2)(b).
....
f. The property which is the subject of the special exception
does not comply with various provisions of Iowa City zoning
law . . . :
a) There is insufficient parking under Ordinance 14-6N–
1....
g. The Board has made inadequate findings of fact and
conclusions of law, contrary to Ordinance 14–6W–3(D).
The last allegation of illegality—that the board’s findings of fact were
inadequate—was based on the board’s alleged failure to specifically find in
its written decision that the proposed exception would not substantially
diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
In response to the petitions, the board submitted its records to the
court, including the application for special exception, the staff report
recommending approval of the special exception, written materials and
comments received by the board, a transcript of the public hearing, the
board’s minutes, and the board’s written decision. In addition, at the trial
on the objectors’ petitions, the district court heard further testimony from
Robert Miklo, city planner for the City of Iowa City. Miklo testified with
respect to the staff report and the board’s findings of fact. No other
evidence outside the board’s records was offered or received.
The court subsequently issued a ruling reversing the board’s decision.
Although the court decided the board had sufficiently complied with the
requirement for written findings of fact, it concluded Shelter House had
failed to present substantial evidence the proposed special exception would
not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
The court also held the board had not correctly interpreted the parking-
6
space requirements of its ordinance.2 The board had approved the special
exception on the basis that eighteen parking spaces would be sufficient;
whereas, under the district court’s interpretation, the ordinance would
require twenty-two parking spaces.
The board and Shelter House filed timely appeals from the district
court’s decision. For convenience, any references in this opinion to the
board include Shelter House unless the context indicates otherwise.
II. Issues on Appeal.
On appeal, the board contends there was substantial evidence to
support its determination that property values would not be substantially
diminished or impaired by the location of transient housing at the proposed
site. With respect to the court’s ruling on the required parking spaces, the
board asserts that it correctly interpreted the parking-space requirements of
its ordinance.
The objectors disagree, of course, with the arguments asserted by the
board on appeal. In addition, they claim that, even if the district court’s
decision on these issues was incorrect, its ruling can nonetheless be upheld
on the basis that the board did not make an adequate factual finding on the
property-values issue.
In our review of the record, we have discovered a preliminary issue
that must be addressed: whether any error with respect to the board’s
determination of the required number of parking spaces was preserved by
the objectors. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454,
470 (Iowa 2000) (stating “this court will consider on appeal whether error
2The city code requires that transient housing provide “one-quarter (¼) parking
space per occupant, based on the maximum number of occupants.” Iowa City Code
§ 14-6N-1(J)(1)(j). The parties disagreed on whether persons working at the facility were
“occupants” so as to require their inclusion in the calculation of the required number of
parking spaces.
7
was preserved despite the opposing party’s omission in not raising this
issue at trial or on appeal”). We will address that issue first.
III. Error Preservation on Parking-Spaces Objection.
The objectors argued in the district court and again on appeal that
the board failed to properly interpret the parking-spaces requirement of the
applicable city ordinance and, consequently, acted illegally in approving a
special exception that did not propose an adequate number of parking
spaces. In reviewing the record certified by the board to the district court,
we are unable to find any discussion of this issue before the board. The
application for special exception stated that the plot plan “shows 18
spaces.” The staff report also reflected this fact and stated, “Eighteen
parking spaces are required . . . .” The petitions signed by the opponents to
the special exception did not raise any concerns with respect to the parking
requirements. At the board’s meeting, city staff presented its report and
again specifically informed the board and those present that the property
would be required to have eighteen parking spaces. No one at the meeting
challenged the legality of the proposed exception on the basis that it did not
comply with the applicable standard for parking spaces.
“In most jurisdictions a reviewing court will not decide an issue which
was not raised in the forum from which the appeal was taken. . . . A
reviewing court will not entertain a new theory or a different claim not
asserted on the board level.” 4 Kenneth H. Young, Anderson’s American
Law of Zoning § 27:37, at 633–34 (4th ed. 1996); accord 83 Am. Jur. 2d
Zoning & Planning § 957, at 791 (2006) (“It has been held that a reviewing
court will not decide an issue that was not raised in the zoning board from
which an appeal has been taken.”). Our court has similarly held that
“issues must first be presented to the agency in order to be preserved for
appellate review.” State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster, 608 N.W.2d 785, 789
8
(Iowa 2000); accord Licari v. Bd. of Educ., 721 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 (App. Div.
2001); Iwan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 677 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (App. Div.
1998); Leoni v. Whitpain Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 709 A.2d 999, 1002 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 1998). Based upon this principle and the record before us, we
conclude the issue concerning the alleged inadequacy of the proposed
parking spaces, which was not raised at the hearing before the board of
adjustment, has not been preserved for this court’s review.
IV. Sufficiency of Board’s Factual Finding Regarding Impact on
Property Values.
The Iowa City Code requires the Iowa City Board of Adjustment to
render its decision in writing, “including findings of fact and conclusions of
law.” Iowa City Code § 14–6W–3(D). It is undisputed the board failed to
make a specific finding or conclusion in its written decision regarding the
effect of the proposed special exception on property values. This issue was
of critical importance because, before the board may approve an application
for a special exception, the board must find the applicant has met several
general standards. One of those standards states: “The specific proposed
exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.” Id. § 14–6W–2(B)(2)(b).
Notwithstanding the board’s failure to specifically address this
standard in its decision, the district court concluded the board had
substantially complied with the requirement of written findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The board urges this court to reach the same
conclusion with respect to the adequacy of its written decision.
The Iowa City ordinance codifies the rule adopted by our court “that
boards of adjustment shall make written findings of fact on all issues
presented in any adjudicatory proceeding.” Citizens Against the Lewis &
9
Clark (Mowery) Landfill v. Pottawattamie County Bd. of Adjustment, 277
N.W.2d 921, 925 (Iowa 1979). We agree with the district court that
substantial—as opposed to literal—compliance with the written-findings
requirement is sufficient.
In Thorson v. Board of Supervisors, 249 Iowa 1088, 90 N.W.2d 730
(1958), we held a board’s substantial compliance with a statutory
requirement was satisfactory, noting “the requirements imposed by statute
upon an inferior tribunal should not be too technically construed, lest its
efficiency be wholly paralyzed.” 249 Iowa at 1097, 90 N.W.2d at 735; accord
Johnson v. Bd. of Adjustment, 239 N.W.2d 873, 887 (Iowa 1976) (“ ‘[O]nly
where it clearly appears there was a failure to substantially comply with the
statutory requirements will there be found jurisdiction violations.’ ”
(quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Iowa State Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 261 Iowa 1203,
1210, 157 N.W.2d 919, 923 (1968)). More recently, in Obrecht v.
Cerro Gordo County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 494 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa
1993), we held substantial compliance with a zoning ordinance was
sufficient. In that case, the county zoning ordinance required that an
application for special use be signed by the landowner. Obrecht, 494
N.W.2d at 703. The application at issue had been signed by the lessee of
the land, not the owner. Id. at 702. The owner had, however, appeared at
and participated in the hearing on the application and had voiced no
opposition. Id. at 703. We held the owner’s presence at the hearing was
substantial compliance with the ordinance requiring the owner’s signature
on the application because “the owner was available to verify his support of
the application and to answer any questions.” Id. Therefore, “[t]he
objectives of the owner filing requirement were more than satisfied.” Id.
As implied by this statement from Obrecht, “substantial compliance”
means the statute or rule “ ‘has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out
10
the intent for which it was adopted.’ ” Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor
Works, 423 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Smith v. State, 364 So. 2d
1, 9 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)). Thus, the reviewing court must determine
based on the facts of the particular case whether the actual compliance has
accomplished the purpose of the statute or rule. Id. Consequently, we
begin with an examination of the purpose of the requirement at issue.
This court was persuaded to adopt a rule requiring written findings
by the following “compelling considerations”: “ ‘facilitating judicial review,
avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more
careful administrative consideration, helping parties plan their cases for
rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their
jurisdiction.’ ” Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925 (quoting K. Davis, Administrative
Law Treatise § 16.05 (2d ed. 1978)). Consistent with these considerations,
we noted in Citizens that a board’s findings “must be sufficient to enable a
reviewing court to determine with reasonable certainty the factual basis and
legal principles upon which the board acted.” Id.; accord Bd. of Dirs. v.
Justmann, 476 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Iowa 1991). Here, the objectors appear to
claim that, because there is no mention of the property-values issue in the
board’s written decision, the board failed to make a decision on this issue,
thereby rendering its action granting the special exception illegal.
Our review of the record convinces us that neither the objectors nor
the district court had to guess whether the board considered and resolved
the property-values issue. The board was clearly aware of the requirement
that the special exception could not be approved if it substantially impaired
neighboring property values. Shelter House addressed this standard in its
application, and later, at the meeting scheduled to consider the application,
city planner Robert Miklo told the board it must consider, among other
items, the requirement that “the proposed special exception . . . will not
11
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.” In
addition, several of the numerous persons who spoke at the hearing
addressed the issue of property values.
After the public comment portion of the meeting concluded, the board
members expressed their views. Board member Mauer was the first to
speak, and he expressly focused his remarks on “the general standards.”
Mauer commented on several of these standards, including the matter of
property values. He stated the impact on property values was “a big issue”
that could not be determined for sure until someone decides to sell property
in the area after Shelter House is there. Mauer was most concerned,
however, regarding the impact of the facility on the comfort, safety, and
health of neighboring residents (another general standard). At this point in
the proceedings, board counsel Holecek reminded the board that the board
had to “conclude each of these standards has been met.” Board member
Mauer then voted “no,” immediately followed by board member Wright, who
discussed the general standards without any specific mention of property
values, and then voted “yes.” Board member Leigh then commented on the
impact of the current transient house on North Gilbert on the surrounding
neighborhood and concluded by saying the proposal “has met the standards
as were previously mentioned and I will vote in favor of this.” Board
member Alexander then stated, “For the reasons already mentioned, I too
am going to vote in favor.” A roll call vote was then taken, resulting in
approval of the application for a special exception on a vote of three to one.
The board later filed a written decision on the Shelter House
application that contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
disposition. In its conclusions of law, the board concluded “that developing
the Shelter House at [the proposed] location will not be detrimental overall
to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare,” as required by
12
section 14–6W–2(B)(2), but did not make specific reference to the other
portion of section 14–6W–2(B)(2) dealing with property values.
These facts show that with respect to the property-values aspect of
general standard section 14–6W–2(B)(2), the board did not literally comply
with the rule that findings of fact and conclusions of law be in writing. We
think, however, that there was substantial compliance. Considering the
board’s written decision in the context of the meeting at which the vote
memorialized in the decision occurred, we are able “to determine with
reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal principles upon which the
board acted.” Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925. We think it is sufficiently clear
that the board considered the general standards, including whether the
proposed special exception would “substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood,” and concluded by a majority vote that these
standards were met. The board’s failure to reference the entirety of the
general standard appearing in section 14–6W–2(B)(2) in its written
conclusions of law is not a fatal flaw that warrants reversal.
V. Scope and Standard of Review of Property-Values Issue.
Our standard of review of the district court’s ruling on the property-
values issue is dependent upon resolution of a disagreement between the
parties with respect to the proper role of the district court in its review of
the board’s decision. Shelter House maintains that the district court must
conduct a substantial-evidence review of the board’s findings. See generally
Grant v. Fritz, 201 N.W.2d 188, 195 (Iowa 1972) (“The ‘substantial evidence
rule’ is utilized in judicial checking of findings of fact . . . .”). Under that
standard of review, the board’s findings are binding if supported by
substantial evidence. In contrast, the opponents claim the district court is
13
entitled to find the facts anew and on appeal to this court, the district court’s
findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence.3
Unlike the typical certiorari case, in which the standard of review is
well established, the review of decisions of boards of adjustment has always
been somewhat problematic. Iowa Code chapter 414 (2003) provides the
procedure for review of a decision of a city board of adjustment.4 A person
aggrieved by a board decision may file a petition for writ of certiorari in the
district court, identifying the claimed illegality of the board’s action. Iowa
Code § 414.15 (stating petition must “specify[] the grounds of the illegality”
of the board’s decision). Upon the filing of a petition, the board of
adjustment must make a return to the writ, which includes the “papers
acted upon by it” and “other facts as may be pertinent and material to show
the grounds of the decision appealed from.” Id. § 414.17.
At this point, the review process reveals its unique characteristics.
Section 414.18 states:
3Itis not clear that the district court made its own factual findings as contended by
the opponents. The dispositive analysis from the district court’s ruling seems to focus on
the board’s findings rather than finding the facts anew:
I conclude that proponents of the Special Exception failed to present
substantial evidence that the proposed Special Exception will not
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The
minutes of the public hearing, the transcript of the public hearing and the
decision of the Board of Adjustment, collectively, do not contain substantial
evidence to support a finding by the board that the proposed Special
Exception will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Adjustment granting
the Special Exception must be reversed.
(Emphasis added.) Although one could argue based on a reading of the court’s entire
discussion of this issue that the court reweighed the evidence, we need not determine
whether the trial court found the facts anew, as this question does not affect our ultimate
resolution of this appeal.
4Comparable statutory provisions govern review of county boards of adjustment.
See Iowa Code §§ 335.18-.21. We have said the review provisions of chapter 335 and
chapter 414 should be interpreted identically. See Bluffs Dev. Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 499
N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa 1993); Trailer City, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 218 N.W.2d 645, 647
(Iowa 1974).
14
If upon the hearing which shall be tried de novo it shall
appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper
disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a
referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the
same to the court with the referee’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the
proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be
made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or
may modify the decision brought up for review.
Id. § 414.18 (emphasis added). This court has attempted over the years to
interpret what the legislature intended when it provided for a trial de novo
and for the taking of additional necessary evidence by the district court.
In our first case to interpret section 414.18,5 Anderson v. Jester, 206
Iowa 452, 221 N.W. 354 (1928), we considered “what questions may be
raised on certiorari.” 206 Iowa at 462, 221 N.W. at 359. Relying on section
414.15, we held only issues of illegality are a permissible basis for relief. Id.
at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. We observed that “arbitrary and unreasonable
action or proceedings” that are not authorized, are contrary to the statute
defining the powers of the board, or are unsupported by facts upon which
the board’s power to act depends are illegal. Id. These grounds of illegality
track those that are raised in certiorari actions generally. See Nash Finch
Co. v. City Council, 672 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa 2003) (“ ‘An illegality is
established if the board has not acted in accordance with a statute; if its
decision was not supported by substantial evidence; or if its actions were
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.’ ” (quoting Perkins v. Bd. of
Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Iowa 2001)). See generally 3 Arden H.
Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning & Planning § 62:32, at 62–66
(2001) (noting same grounds) [hereinafter Rathkopf’s Law of Zoning].
5Over the years, the Code editor has renumbered the chapter dealing with city
zoning, so some of our early cases refer to the relevant sections of chapter 414 by a
different number. For clarity, we will simply use the current section numbers in discussing
these decisions. The substance of the pertinent code provisions has not changed.
15
We also considered in Anderson “the method and scope of review by
the trial court permitted by [this] legislative enactment.” Anderson, 206
Iowa at 454, 221 N.W. at 355. Noting that the board of adjustment is not
required “to return findings of fact,” this court explained the purpose of the
district court’s power to take additional evidence as follows:
If all the material facts appear in the record, or are not
disputed, or only questions arising upon the record are
presented, the taking of evidence is not necessary. Questions
likely to arise in such cases are of such great importance that
the Legislature appears to have had in mind that the parties
should, on the question of the legality of the board’s action, be
entitled to a full and complete hearing before a proper court of
record and according to accepted judicial method of
ascertaining facts.
Id. at 461–62, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Thus, when the record is
inadequate to determine the legality of the board’s action, additional
evidence is necessary and may properly be taken by the district court.
Our discussion in Anderson of the district court’s scope of review was
not as clear. We said:
The parties are not, on certiorari, bound by the finding or opinion
of the local board on the facts, or by the evidence offered there,
or by knowledge outside of the evidence on which the board
may have acted, but, ordinarily at least, are entitled to take
testimony when a determinative issue of fact is raised.
Id. at 462, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Later in the same opinion,
this seemingly expansive de novo review is qualified:
If it had been intended to give to the aggrieved party the right
to remove the determination of the entire matter from the local
officers and board to the court, it is reasonable to suppose that
the remedy provided would have been appeal rather than
certiorari. . . .
....
. . . The trial de novo permitted, and the determination of
whether testimony is necessary, and the admission of such
testimony, . . . should be confined to the questions of illegality
raised by the petition for the writ. . . . If one of the grounds of
alleged illegality is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory
16
action on the part of the board, and on the facts the
reasonableness of the board’s action is open to a fair difference
of opinion, there is, as to that, no illegality. The court is not, in
such case, authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the
local board.
Id. at 462–63, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). We noted that arbitrary
and unreasonable action includes action that is not authorized by the
statute defining the board’s power or that is contrary to or unsupported by
the required facts. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359.
Although one could argue our discussion of the statute in Anderson
did not completely clarify the district court’s de novo fact-finding role, our
subsequent cases consistently limited the trial de novo “to the questions of
illegality raised by the petition for the writ.” Deardorf v. Bd. of Adjustment,
254 Iowa 380, 383, 118 N.W.2d 78, 80 (1962); accord Vogelaar v. Polk
County Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 188 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1971). Our
cases also confirmed that the statute did not provide “for trial de novo by
equitable proceedings.” Deardorf, 243 Iowa at 383–85, 118 N.W.2d at 80
(examining sufficiency of evidence before the board on question of
unnecessary hardship); accord Trailer City, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 218
N.W.2d 645, 647 (Iowa 1974) (“The term ‘de novo’ . . . does not bear its
equitable connotation.”); Vogelaar, 188 N.W.2d at 863 (noting trial is
de novo only “in the sense that testimony in addition to the return may be
taken if it appears to the court necessary for the proper disposition of the
matter”); Zilm v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 260 Iowa 787, 794–95, 150
N.W.2d 606, 611 (1967) (reversing district court’s determination of
boundary line location contrary to that found by the board, stating there
was no basis for finding board did not act reasonably and therefore, court
could not substitute its judgment).
We now turn to our decision in Weldon v. Zoning Board, 250 N.W.2d
396 (Iowa 1977). In that case, we considered “what effect the statutes have
17
on the mode and scope of district court review when a claim of illegality in
the certiorari action involves an issue of the sufficiency of evidence to
support the decision of the inferior tribunal.” Weldon, 250 N.W.2d at 400.
We observed that section 414.18 had “modified” the rule applicable in
ordinary certiorari actions that “the findings of fact of the inferior tribunal
may not be upset if they are supported by substantial evidence before that
tribunal.” Id. We attributed this interpretation of section 414.18 to our
decision in Anderson:
Therefore, the teaching of the Anderson case is that in a
certiorari proceeding in a zoning case the district court finds
the facts anew on the record made in the certiorari proceeding.
That record will include the return to the writ and any
additional evidence which may have been offered by the
parties. However, the district court is not free to decide the
case anew. Illegality of the challenged board action is
established by reason of the court’s findings of fact if they do
not provide substantial support for the board decision. If the
district court’s findings of fact leave the reasonableness of the
board’s action open to a fair difference of opinion, the court
may not substitute its decision for that of the board.
Id. at 401. It appears, then, that in Weldon we interpreted section 414.18 to
place the entire fact-finding role on the district court even when the claimed
illegality was that the evidence was not sufficient to support the board’s
decision. See Giesey v. Bd. of Adjustment, 229 N.W.2d 258, 260 (Iowa 1975)
(holding illegality exists when there is not substantial evidence to support
the decision of the board).
Notwithstanding our attempt in Weldon to clarify what the legislature
meant by the language “tried de novo,” in at least two subsequent cases in
which the alleged illegality of the board’s decision was a lack of substantial
evidence to support its decision, the district court simply reviewed the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the board’s decision without making
its own fact-findings. See Cyclone Sand & Gravel Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment,
351 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Iowa 1984); Jorgensen v. Bd. of Adjustment, 336
18
N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1983). These cases appear to be more in line with a
case that predated Weldon, Buchholz v. Board of Adjustment, 199 N.W.2d 73
(Iowa 1972), which considered a county zoning statute identical to the city
zoning statute at issue in this case. In Buchholz, we stated that “de novo”
as used in section 335.21
does no more than permit the introduction of additional
evidence in district court if the court finds that course
necessary for proper disposition of the cause. With that
qualification the decision of the administrative body is
conclusive unless arbitrary, capricious or otherwise illegal.
199 N.W.2d at 78.
In considering the scope of review in the present appeal, this court is
faced with the problem of ascertaining the meaning of section 414.18 in the
face of conflicting case law. It is helpful, then, to examine general
authorities in this area of the law. In Rathkopf’s Law of Zoning, the authors
state the review provision in the standard zoning enabling act “gives the
court the power to take evidence when there is an issue raised by the
pleadings in the proceeding other than whether the determination is
supported by substantial evidence.”6 Rathkopf’s Law of Zoning § 62:46, at
62–123 (emphasis added).
In those cases in which the issue is whether the action of a
board is based upon substantial evidence, the determination as
to the validity of a board’s decision should be based upon the
record of the proceedings before the board as supplemented by
the testimony taken before the court. It should not decide the
case merely on the basis of the testimony taken before it if the
facts found by the court therein are materially at variance with
those found by the board. The court cannot make new findings
on issues presented below.
Id. at 62–129 (emphasis added).
6Section414.18 of Iowa’s zoning act is identical to the standard zoning enabling act
with the exception of the additional language in the Iowa act, “which shall be tried
de novo.”
19
The author clarifies that, with respect to issues of substantial
evidence, “[i]t is only in those extraordinary cases in which it is not clear
from the record what a board considered and how it arrived at its findings
that additional testimony will ordinarily be taken in order for a court to
evaluate [the board’s] determination.” Id. § 62:46, at 62–130 to –131.
According to this treatise, other claims of illegality more properly give rise to
the need for additional testimony in district court:
Where an issue is raised by the petition and answer as to
whether the determination was made in violation of lawful
procedure, or was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, the
court should take evidence with respect to the matters thus
put in issue, and apply the law thereto. Since such matters
would not ordinarily appear in the return and record of the
respondent in the proceedings, such authority will be utilized
when questions of fact are presented which cannot be
summarily decided in the review proceeding on the basis of
allegations in the petition, although sworn to, or in affidavits,
or on the exhibits and other types of informal evidence which a
board of appeals is accustomed to consider.
....
Where the person appealing from the action of the
administrative body sets forth in his petition sufficient facts to
persuade the court that there were “in fact or in all likelihood,
factors present, not of record which influenced the action of the
council complained of,” . . . the court should conduct a hearing
and consider evidence not of record before the administrative
body since the court could not properly have determined the
question from the transcript of the proceedings at the public
hearing.
Id. at 62–123 to –124, 62–128.
Thus, with respect to the district court’s proper role in taking
additional evidence, this authority distinguishes between illegalities that
appear in the record made before the board, e.g., insufficiency of the
evidence to support the board’s findings, and illegalities that are outside the
record, e.g., a board member’s conflict of interest. Only when the illegality
does not appear in the record made before the board should the district
20
court take additional evidence. In addition, this authority would limit the
court’s fact-finding role to issues that were not before the board.
Although the standard act discussed in Rathkopf admittedly does not
contain the “tried de novo” language appearing in Iowa’s statute, courts
from other states interpreting statutory language similar to Iowa’s have
interpreted their statutes consistently with Rathkopf’s analysis. See
Colorado Land Use Comm’n v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 604 P.2d 32 (Colo.
1979); People ex rel. St. Albans-Springfield Corp. v. Connell, 177 N.E. 313
(N.Y. 1931); Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, 106 S.E.2d 755, 758–59 (Va.
1959) (relying on Iowa Anderson case). In Colorado Land Use Commission,
the Colorado Supreme Court defined the phrase “trial de novo” as used in a
statute describing review of decisions of the board to mean something less
than “trial anew on the merits”: “The de novo term is included to indicate
that any relevant evidence may be introduced to attempt to prove illegality
such as fraud, sham, bribery, failure to comply with statutory
requirements, or abuse of legislative discretion.” 604 P.2d at 36. Since the
appellant in that case had sought a de novo review of the merits of the
board’s determination, the Colorado court held the trial court had properly
dismissed the appellant’s complaint. Id. Similarly, in St. Albans-Springfield,
the highest court in New York observed that a court having a power of
review similar to that provided in chapter 414 “is not supposed to exercise it
as though it were the board of standards and appeals. . . . The courts must
not trespass upon this administrative work, but confine their review to
correcting legal errors.” 177 N.E. at 315.
Although these decisions and Rathkopf’s discussion of the district
court’s role in reviewing a board decision are contrary to our holding in
Weldon, we think the analysis of these authorities makes sense and is
entirely consistent with our statutory language. Section 414.18 allows the
21
court to take evidence “[i]f . . . it shall appear to the court that testimony is
necessary for the proper disposition of the matter.” (Emphasis added.)
Ordinarily, testimony would not be necessary when the claimed illegality is
insufficient evidence, at least when a record was made before the board.
Our proposed interpretation of the statute also reflects our traditional
deference to the fact-finding role of the local tribunal with respect to the
issues of fact essential to its decision by preserving the substantial-evidence
rule in the review of board decisions. We think it is simply inconsistent to
define an illegality as a lack of substantial evidence to support the board’s
decision, a rule used to review an inferior tribunal’s fact-finding, but then
place the ultimate fact-finding responsibility on the district court. In other
words, a substantial-evidence review makes more sense if the fact-finding
relevant to the issues before the board remains with the board.
We also think application of the substantial-evidence rule is more
consistent with the principle stated in Weldon and other Iowa cases that the
court should not substitute its judgment for that of the board. See, e.g.,
Helmke v. Bd. of Adjustment, 418 N.W.2d 346, 352 (Iowa 1988); Weldon, 250
N.W.2d at 401; Anderson, 206 Iowa at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. The existence
of a particular fact is often outcome determinative, as in the present case.
To allow the district court to make this crucial finding of fact necessarily
allows the court to substitute its judgment for that of the board.
Importantly, interpreting section 414.18 consistently with Rathkopf’s
explanation of the standard act does not render the Iowa statute’s reference
to “the hearing which shall be tried de novo” superfluous because, for
illegalities that are not based on the board’s fact-finding function, the
district court does find the facts pertinent to the claimed illegality. Finally,
we think the Rathkopf interpretation is more understandable, more easily
and consistently applied by the district courts, and more consistent with
22
the certiorari mode of review adopted by the legislature for review of board
decisions.
In summary, we overrule Weldon to the extent it permitted the court
to make new factual findings on issues that were before the board for
decision. Such fact-findings will be reviewed under the substantial-
evidence test traditionally employed in certiorari reviews.
VI. Substantial Evidence to Support Board’s Finding That
Property Values Would Not be Substantially Diminished or Impaired.
As noted above, the board could not grant a special exception to
Shelter House unless it was satisfied “[t]he specific proposed exception . . .
will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood.” Iowa City Code § 14–6W–2(B)(2)(b). We must determine
whether there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that
this standard was met. “Evidence is substantial ‘when a reasonable mind
could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.’ ” City of
Cedar Rapids v. Mun. Fire & Police Ret. Sys., 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa
1995) (quoting Norland v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 913
(Iowa 1987)).
In concluding Shelter House “failed to present substantial evidence
that the proposed Special Exception will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood,” the district court observed
there was no testimony or comment at the public hearing from
any real estate assessor, real estate appraiser, realtor or owner
of property near the current Shelter House concerning this
issue, with the exception of a property manager who
commented on the already existing problem of renting out
property [in the vicinity of the new location].
The district court also gave little credence to the testimony of an urban
planner, who referred to national research that property values located in
areas of transient housing do not necessarily go down, because the speaker
23
did not provide any documentation of the research or its source. The court
concluded the minutes of the board meeting, the transcript of that meeting,
and the board’s written decision did not collectively contain substantial
evidence to support the board’s finding that property values would not be
impaired or substantially diminished.
While the issue is close, we conclude there was substantial evidence
to support the board’s decision. As the district court accurately observed,
there was no expert testimony that property values would not be impaired
by the location of the transient home. Nonetheless, the absence of such
evidence is not fatal, as expert testimony concerning the valuation of
property is not required by our cases or by the Iowa City Code. Cf. Petersen
v. Harrison County Bd. of Supervisors, 580 N.W.2d 790, 796 (Iowa 1998)
(noting no requirement under chapter 352, dealing with designation of
property as an agricultural area, that expert testimony concerning reduced
property values be presented at hearing before the board). See generally
Norland v. Worth County Comp. Bd., 323 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Iowa 1982)
(noting determination of a prevailing wage is not an exact science, and there
was no statutory constraint on the type of evidence the board could
consider).
One person residing in the vicinity of the current transient house
commented that the property values in that neighborhood had not been
adversely affected. The board was certainly permitted to rely on such
anecdotal evidence. See Cambodian Buddhist Soc’y v. Planning & Zoning
Comm’n, ___ A.2d ___, ___ (Conn. 2008) (noting “commission was entitled to
credit the anecdotal reports that past activities on the society’s property had
made neighboring properties less desirable” in determining whether
proposed construction of temple would impair property values). In addition,
the board may rely on commonsense inferences drawn from evidence
24
relating to other issues, such as use and enjoyment, crime, safety, welfare,
and aesthetics, to make a judgment as to whether the proposed use would
substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. See Miller v.
Hill, 785 N.E.2d 532, 539 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (concluding testimony of
neighbors of firing range that noise did not bother them and they were not
concerned about safety was adequate proof that proposed firing range
would not adversely affect property values); Ballas v. Town of Weaverville,
465 S.E.2d 324, 326–27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (holding testimony that “bed
and breakfast would be an ‘attribute to the community’ supports an
inference that it would not impair property values in the neighborhood”).
We examine, then, evidence before the board that would permit an inference
with respect to property values.
The concern most often voiced by opponents of the special exception
was the increased likelihood of criminal acts in the neighborhood. Several
witnesses reviewed the statistics concerning the arrest rates for residents of
the current shelter house and for residents of Hilltop Mobile Home Court, a
mobile home development in the neighborhood of the new location.
Although the witnesses differed in their interpretation of this data, a close
inspection of these figures reveals that the arrest rate for persons giving
Shelter House as their address was likely less than the arrest rate for
persons giving Hilltop Mobile Home Court as their address. Moreover, there
appeared to be more concern about potential crime due to the number of
persons turned away by Shelter House than by the persons who actually
stay there. There was testimony that the proposed doubling of capacity at
the new facility may offset this negative impact by significantly reducing the
number of persons turned away for lack of room. There was also a
statement from a neighbor of the current shelter house that he did not
observe any “rise or change in the amount of crime in the neighborhood.”
25
In addition to the evidence regarding crime, there was testimony from
two persons residing in the neighborhood of the current shelter house that
the establishment caused no problems in the neighborhood other than
some detrimental aesthetics relating to trash cans and the lawn. These
issues were to be addressed at the new transient house through a
requirement that the new location have a landscape buffer and an eight-foot
privacy fence. Another neighbor at the current location denied there was
any increase in vehicular traffic due to the presence of the transient house.
There was also evidence that it was already difficult to rent property at any
price in the area of the new location, supporting an inference that transient
housing would not have much of an effect on the already depressed
property values. Finally, notwithstanding a lack of documentation, the
board could consider the testimony of the urban planner that national
research showed property values do not necessarily go down when such a
use is introduced into a neighborhood.
We think this evidence, considered collectively, is adequate to support
the board’s conclusion that the proposed special exception would not
substantially diminish or impair the value of neighboring properties.
Although there was evidence to the contrary, the reasonableness of the
board’s decision is open to a fair difference of opinion, and therefore, the
board’s decision should have been affirmed on that basis. See Helmke, 418
N.W.2d at 352 (stating “whether the evidence in a close case such as this
one might well support an opposite finding is of no consequence, for the
district court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board of
adjustment”).
VII. Disposition.
We conclude the board made adequate findings, and its decision was
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the district court erred in
26
reversing the board’s grant of Shelter House’s application for a special
exception. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand
this case back to the district court for entry of an order affirming the
decision of the board of adjustment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.