UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court revives suit against Polk County over rezoning decision on Family Leader project

by Rox Laird | April 15, 2025

Five individual plaintiffs living near a non-profit group’s proposed office and event center have standing to pursue claims alleging they would be injured by development in what is now an area zoned for agricultural use. The Iowa Supreme Court reached this conclusion in a decision handed down April 4. And the Court held that a land-preservation organization should have the opportunity to make the case that it, too, has standing to sue.

The decision revives the suit brought by 1000 Friends of Iowa, Bill Barnes Inc., Bradley E. Coulson, Teresa M. Coulson, Sondra K. Feldstein Revocable Trust, and Stuart I. Feldstein Revocable Trust that had been dismissed by the Polk County District Court with prejudice on a motion by the defendant Polk County Board of Supervisors.

The opinion for the majority was written by Justice Matthew McDermott joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman. Justice Christopher McDonald wrote a separate opinion joining the majority in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Dana Oxley and David May.

At issue is a parcel of unincorporated Polk County land rezoned from agriculture to mixed use that will allow the Christian-centered Family Leader Foundation to build offices, an event center, outdoor amphitheater and a bed-and-breakfast on the site. The Polk County Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning over the recommendations of county staff and the Polk County Zoning Commission based on the staff’s and the commission’s concerns that the rezoning conflicts with the county’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan that would preserve “prime farmland.”

1000 Friends of Iowa and the five individual plaintiffs who own land near the Family Leader site challenged the legality of the rezoning in their suit against the board. The board moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the individual plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any personal or legal interest in the board’s action and that 1000 Friends failed to adequately allege organizational standing.

The district court granted the board’s motion to dismiss, saying the plaintiffs failed to establish standing and that, because the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act and because they failed to meet the Act’s pleading requirements, their case must be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they may not amend or refile the suit.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed on the question of the heightened pleading requirement under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act and the individual plaintiffs’ standing.

One subsection of the qualified immunity provision of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (Iowa Code Chapter 670) says that “an employee or officer subject to a claim brought under this chapter shall not be liable for monetary damages,” and a second says that a “plaintiff who brings a claim under this chapter alleging a violation of the law must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the violation and that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

The Court, which interpreted the two sections as being working together rather than independently, agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the heightened pleading provision is not triggered in their case because they did not seek monetary damages.

“Because the plaintiffs’ petition alleges claims for illegal zoning without any claim for monetary damages, we conclude that neither the heightened pleading requirements nor the dismissal-with-prejudice penalty for insufficient pleadings found in [section] 670.4A(3) apply in this case,” Justice McDermott wrote.

As for standing, McDermott wrote that while it appears the Iowa Supreme the Court has not previously addressed the question of “whether a resident living near, but not adjacent to, a rezoned property has standing to challenge a zoning decision,” the Iowa Court of Appeals held in 1981 that any “person whose specific interest or property rights are specially damaged, in contrast to any effect suffered by the public generally, is entitled to challenge a zoning authority’s decision.”

“This includes nearby property owners,” McDermott wrote, and “the individual plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged standing in this case.”

1000 Friends argues that it has organizational standing to challenge the rezoning under Iowa Code Chapter 335, which governs county zoning, based on its mission to prevent “poorly planned land use decisions” and encourage “land use planning that protects farmland and natural areas.”

The Iowa Supreme Court has previously held that an organization may have organizational standing as an aggrieved party when its members have been aggrieved. But 1000 Friends’ interest, as pleaded, “appears to be no greater than any member of the general public, and thus it has not been “aggrieved” by the zoning decision as required under section 335.18,” the Court said. Nor has it alleged facts establishing that any of its members have standing.

1000 Friends moved to amend its petition at the hearing on the county’s motion to dismiss, which the district court denied based on its application of the heightened pleading standards in section 670.4A. Because the heightened pleading standard was erroneously applied by the trial court, the Supreme Court said 1000 Friends should have been granted the opportunity to amend its petition.

The case now goes back to the district court for further proceedings in light of this decision.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice McDonald wrote that while he agreed with the majority that the individual plaintiffs have standing, he disagreed with the Court as to 1000 Friends.

The question in this case, he wrote, is whether 1000 Friends of Iowa falls within the class of persons the Legislature authorized to challenge the rezoning decision, that is whether 1000 Friends of Iowa was “aggrieved by” the rezoning. Applying the Iowa Court of Appeals’ 1981 decision to this case, he wrote “I conclude 1000 Friends of Iowa was not aggrieved by the zoning decision and thus has no right to pursue the statutory cause of action authorized by section 335.18.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25