by Gary Taylor
Zenner v. Dubuque County Board of Adjustment
(Iowa Court of Appeals, October 3, 2012)
In July 2003 when the Zenners planned to purchase property in Dubuque County, they requested a variance from the 500-foot setback requirement for kennels. They wanted to build the kennels with a 200-foot setback from the surrounding residences. After consulting with the county attorney, the Dubuque County Zoning Administrator advised the Zenners that the Kennel would not be allowed in the A-1, Agriculture district. The district allows kennels, except that “no kennel shall be allowed to harbor, breed, train, buy, sell, exchange or offer for sale any animal to be used solely for attack purposes nor any animal not normally associated with domestic enjoyment.” The ordinance also lists examples of the types of animals prohibited: “Such ban shall include but shall not be limited to jungle cats, venomous snakes or other reptiles larger than four feet in length, pit bulls, coyotes, wolves, foxes, skunks, deer or other similar wild animals.” Undaunted, the Zenners went ahead with their plans, purchased the property, and built a kennel that violated the setback requirements for kennels. Learning of this, the zoning administrator notified the Zenners that they were in violation of the ordinance. The Zenners appealed the violation to the Dubuque County Zoning Board of Adjustment, which upheld the zoning administrator’s violation. The district court upheld the decision. An appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals resulted.
Starting its analysis by noting that a court “construes zoning restrictions strictly in order to favor the free use of property,” the Court of Appeals concluded that the county attorney misinterpreted the county’s zoning ordinance. The county attorney based his conclusion that the kennel was raising greyhounds “not normally associated with domestic enjoyment” on the fact that the dogs were for commercial sale. However, the Court pointed out that the zoning ordinance identifies another type of kennel – “kennel, hobby” – that does not include commercial activity or breeding or sale for a consideration. The implication is that use of the word “kennel” by itself could not be meant to exclude commercial kennels. “Following the county attorney’s analysis could lead to a determination that any kennel raising dogs for show instead of as pets would not be permitted because it would be ‘a non-exempt commercial use.'”
To further support this conclusion the Court pointed to the existence of Iowa Code 99D.27 – which requires dog tracks to maintain a racing dog adoption program – as “evidence public policy and law in Iowa considers greyhounds to be normally associated with domestic enjoyment.” The Court also noted that the only dog listed in the banned animals is “pit bull.” According to the Court greyhounds “possess [none] of the characteristics associated with the litany of prohibited animals.”
The Court of Appeals found in favor of the Zenners, reversing the district court.
