## Facts

- A well-known tourist site near Dyersville, Iowa, associated with the “Field of Dreams” movie, sat in an area zoned A-1 Agricultural.
- Developers proposed a baseball/softball complex that would preserve the original field and farmhouse while adding significant new facilities.
- The City of Dyersville had a zoning ordinance and comprehensive planning documents stating traditional zoning objectives and directing zoning decisions to consider area character, suitability of uses, and property values.
- The city reviewed materials including economic-impact projections and infrastructure studies (e.g., traffic and wastewater) and held public hearings with both support and opposition.
- The Dyersville City Council enacted ordinances rezoning the area from A-1 Agricultural to C-2 Commercial to facilitate the development.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning from A-1 Agricultural to C-2 Commercial was illegal because it lacked adequate support or conflicted with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning purposes.
2. Whether, under certiorari-style review of the council’s action, the rezoning was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether written objections by nearby property owners triggered a city-code requirement for a heightened vote (e.g., unanimous/supermajority) and, if so, whether the council satisfied that requirement.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment annulling the writs of certiorari and upheld the rezoning ordinances.
- The court concluded the council’s decision had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including studies and public-hearing materials.
- The court held the rezoning was sufficiently consistent with the city’s planning framework; the comprehensive plan functioned as a guiding policy document rather than a strict, item-by-item mandate.
- The court rejected the claimed heightened-vote requirement because the protest threshold in the city code was not met; therefore, the council’s majority vote was sufficient.

## Legal Principles

- A rezoning decision will be upheld on certiorari-type review when it is not illegal, arbitrary, or capricious and is supported by substantial evidence.
- Comprehensive plans guide zoning decisions but do not rigidly control each rezoning; reasonable local judgments about plan consistency receive judicial deference when supported by the record.
- Local “written protest” provisions requiring a heightened council vote apply only if the protesting property owners satisfy the code’s specific threshold conditions; otherwise, a standard majority vote is valid.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the City Council’s rezoning of the Field of Dreams area for a proposed sports complex because the council’s action was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or illegal, was acceptably consistent with comprehensive planning goals, and did not trigger any protest-based supermajority voting requirement.


Residential & Agricultural Advisory Comm., LLC v. Dyersville City Council, 888 N.W.2d 24 (Iowa 2016)