Rezone reaches end zone: Final public hearing results in heated debate

Despite tense back-and-forth debate with no side letting up, the Jasper County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 on Tuesday, Oct. 3 to rezone a 19-acre piece of farmland in Mingo to make way for a future residential development project, which was widely disputed by neighbors who say their valuations will increase.

If valuations of their homes were to increase, then it is likely their property taxes will increase, too. But supervisors were adamant that the neighbors’ location on the west side of the county — which is closest to Polk County and the growing Des Moines metro — is already increasing the valuations of their homes.

Jasper County Supervisor Brandon Talsma repeated these sentiments to little effect during the third public hearing regarding the rezone.

“You guys are operating under the principle that because a development comes in it makes the land more valuable,” he said. “You guys are already paying for that value on your land. Purely by being located on the west half of the county, land values are higher on the west half of the county than they are the east half.”

The increased value of the land is already being reflected in those property tax bills, he added. So constructing 16 more houses does not mean property taxes are going to go up $2,000. When neighbors claimed the need for more utility infrastructure would also increase property taxes, Talsma said they were wrong.

Jasper County has nothing to do with water or electrical infrastructure, he said. Private utility companies will be in charge of building any needed infrastructure.

The developer of the subdivision will be the one who pays for it.

When pressured about whether their utility bills would increase, Talsma directed them to contact the utility board since the county does not collect money from utility bills. Jasper County Supervisor Denny Stevenson said utility bills will probably go up, but not because of the construction of 16 new houses.

“These companies are expanding all over the district,” Stevenson said. “…The construction of 16 houses, that alone is not going to cause you to increase.”

Yes, in a way, the residents will pay for the utility infrastructure through their bills, but Stevenson stressed bills would have increased regardless of whether or not the residential development is constructed next door. Talsma also emphasized developers/land owners will pay for the actual construction of the infrastructure.

Jessica Butler, who lives adjacent to the property, argued it eventually catches up to property values. Talsma disagreed. Butler claimed stronger utility grids will increase property values. Talsma said it doesn’t, and that the assessor does not consider power grids when determining property values.

Butler said, “When we have new houses that are going to come on what is now agricultural property, that is going to inflate the value of that 20 acres significantly. Which will trickle out and inflate the values of all of our homes.”

“No,” Talsma said. “No it doesn’t.”

“If you look at the real estate market, that’s how it works.”

“Trust me, I’m intricately familiar with how it works and what you guys are doing is you’re paying that value already. That’s what I’m saying … This one development is not going to make it go up. The fact the west side is developing faster and has higher value land, is already being reflected on your property tax values. It’s already on there. Whether this development goes in or not, it’s already on there.”

Butler said, “We’re going to have to disagree on that.”

Jay Cowan, of Platinum Development and DSM Construction, said as the developer he is eating that cost of constructing utility infrastructure. He budgets for it for every project. Development companies either bond for it and pay for it gradually or pay for it immediately out of pocket.

“And that goes into the cost of the property, of the development,” Cowan said. “Our lots.”

While Talsma disliked going against the planning and zoning commission’s recommendation, he was ultimately in favor of the rezone. He reasoned there are more houses within a half-mile radius of this property than what several of the small towns have, and he questioned if the land has any real agricultural value.

Farming row crops like corn or soybeans out of the land, he added, would not be cost-effective, either. Some neighbors argued the land could be used for alfalfa or be used as pasture for livestock. But the owner of the private property wants to use it for development, a right that Talsma defended.

“At the end of the day, I’m always going to decide on the side of personal property rights,” he said.

Talsma also defended the nearby horse boarding business, which neighbors said would likely be the target of nuisance calls due to manure and general farm smells and activity. The supervisor said there are tolerance processes in place that protect farmers from legal attacks.

For Talsma, this rezone request is similar to the rezone of what has now become known as Bowen Acres along Highway S-74 South, because it, too, is expanding upon already existing properties in the area. It was also contested by several neighboring home owners arguing similar points.

“This is actually more of the type of development that we want,” Talsma said. “I don’t think it contributes to urban sprawl. Personally, I think this contributes less to urban sprawl … Sixteen homes being built here contribute to less urban sprawl than two homes out in the middle of a 40-acre section.”

Talsma also disagreed with the justification of denying the rezone request because neighbors do not want it. By that justification, he said, the neighbors living in the nearby Valley View Estates Plat 3 subdivision nearby shouldn’t have had their rezone approved either. Neighbors disagreed.

“Time and time again what comes before this board is: ‘We want to live in the country and we want to live in an unincorporated subdivision, but we don’t want anybody else to live in it. I want to be the last house,’” Talsma said, noting by choosing to live in that type of subdivision ensures future subdivisions are built.

Stevenson sided with Talsma. Supervisor Doug Cupples said he had empathy for both sides but he ultimately was in favor of the rezone.

“Housing is one of our very serious things that we are looking to do, to add to Jasper County,” he said. “I know there is a lot of emotion that’s in this, and I get all that. But 94 percent of Jasper County is ag, and 400,000 acres are ag. I don’t know why I’m so nervous about this, I just don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.”

CITIZENS AND PROPERTY OWNER PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS

The acreage, owned by Anita Norian, is located east of West 140th Street North and south of North 51st Avenue West in Mingo, near what is commonly referred to as Indian Hills. There are approximately 70 houses in that subdivision, which started in 1978. Houses were built from then until the 1990s.

East of the property is a horse farm that was built in 1980, and it is currently operating as K & H Ranch. Kevin Luetters, director of community development for Jasper County, the subdivision directly west of the property was rezoned in 2011 or 2012, with houses being built from 2016 to 2019.

The land’s agricultural value is considered to be average, but the score was high enough for the county’s zoning commission to oppose the rezone. Some commission members were worried the lots would be too small, while others worried it would be considered sprawl. Luetters disagrees.

“We’re not taking 40 acres out of the middle of a field and building houses,” he said. “This is kind of the natural expansion as we have seen over the years.”

Ashley McLaughlin, a horse trainer who works at K & H Ranch, came to the meeting on behalf of the two owners of the ranch. She said the purpose of agricultural zoning districts is to provide for the agricultural community and protect productive farmland from urban encroachment.

“This is also our way of life,” she said. “And with this coming in — granted, there are other houses — the boys (at K & H Ranch) need the top property, and I understand they are not able to use if it they sell it, but also you gotta take into account for the rising land prices as well and the rising property taxes.”

Constructing a residential subdivision on the land could also force out the ranch and boarding facility, which McLaughlin said also brings in agri-tourism.

“If you are to encourage this you’re going to harm and damage the community we have built around K & H Ranch,” McLaughlin said.

Josh Meyer, who lives near the northwest corner of the Norian property, provided the board of supervisors with documents he obtained from about 15 different home owners in the area who oppose the rezone. Everybody is against it, Meyer said, for the same reasons brought up at past meetings.

Residents largely worried about additional demand on current roads and utility infrastructure, sprawl, watershed impacts, tax implications to residential and business properties, ecological and environmental impacts and future potential nuisance complaints toward surrounding property owners.

“Hoping it can stay the way it is,” Meyer said. “We’ve heard all of it. There’s only so much and I can’t keep repeating the same thing.”

Butler, who lives directly south of Meyer’s home, read from a prepared statement, saying residents have spoken passionately about their concerns. Butler referenced the comprehensive plan adopted by the county in 2020, a major component of which was land use.

Specifically, she cited a vision statement that states: “Jasper County will combine prosperity and preservation and be a community where people can put down roots to grow towards a brighter future.” Butler said the prominent words she hears from that vision are prosperity and preservation.

“Today’s decision will directly impact prosperity of adjacent landowners and also determine the path of preservation for the acres at stake,” Butler said. “As public decision makers, you are entrusted with the power to make the best decisions for all residents, visitors, vested stakeholders and property owners.”

Butler added that neighbors agree Norian has the right to sell her personal property and is safe to do with it what she chooses. But she asked supervisors to consider the interests of residents and still support the recommendation of the county zoning commission to not approve the rezone.

Norian, a born-and-raised Iowan who is one of 11 children, said her father purchased the 19 acres more than 25 years ago, and it was always his intention to build on that land. He had always planned to build a house on that land and convince as many of his children to build houses on it.

“He saw that as the ‘family compound,’ I will quote his words,” she said. “And it always intended to be something he was going to build and develop. Unfortunately, my mom’s health declined right about that time … So that delayed the plans and it was on pause for a number of years.”

The neighbors to the east started a horse farm, which would eventually be sold to the current owners of K & H Ranch. Back then, Norian’s father spoke with them about allowing them to borrow or lease the land to use for the horses while he took a pause to focus on his wife’s health.

“He gave them — I’m an accountant — a very, very, very generous lease for that land to allow them to grow their business and get on their feet,” Norian said. “But there was never any intention that would be a long-term deal. It was always his plan to a develop and build on that land.”

When her father’s health declined and Norian took over the farm, she continued with that deal in good faith. When the ranch had sold to new neighbors, she did not change anything and kept the agreement as it was originally presented to the past neighbors. But, again, it was never intended to be a long-term deal.

“We always planned to develop the land and continue to love Jasper County, love that piece of property and invest,” Norian said. “That was always the goal.”