Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Ordinance-Horse dealer asks court to prevent city /") <br />from enforcing ordinance banning farm animals <br /> <br />Claims 'right-to-farm' law precludes city rule <br /> <br />Citation: Bice v. City of Rexford, 2007 WL 2915611 (Kan. Ct. App. <br />2007), unpublished <br /> <br />KANSAS (lO/OS/07)-In 2005, the city of Rexford enacted an or- <br />dinance that prohibited farm animals in the city. At the time that <br />the ordinance ~as passed, Bice was keeping horses in the city for <br />resale purposes. <br />After the ordinance became effective, the city sent a formal notice <br />to Bice saying that the horses had to be removed from the city within <br />10 days or a complaint would be filed against him. Violations of the <br />ordinance could result in $100 fines, imprisonment for 30 days, or <br />both. In addition, the violation could be considered a nuisance, and <br />the city was authorized to remove the nuisance-including, in this <br />case, taking the horses to an animal shelter. <br />Before the 10 days passed, Bice petitioned the court for an injunc- <br />tion that would prevent the, city from carrying out any of the above- <br />stated consequences. Bice argued that a provision of the Kansas <br />right-to-farm law prevented the city's "interference by ordinance" <br />from, the use of property within the city to raise horses for sale, <br />which was an agricultural use. <br />Bice also claimed that the ordinance banning all livestock from <br />the city, as a zoning ordinance, should include a grandfathering pro- <br />vision. Generally, when a zoning ordinance made an existing land <br />use no longer legal, uses that were legal before the ordinance was <br />enacted were allowed to continue with nonconforming status. <br />The court found that the right-to-farm law provided no protec- <br />tion to Bice and that the ordinance in question was not a zoning but, <br />rather, a "typical ordinance" under the city's general police power <br />authority. Bice's request for injunction was denied, and he appealed. <br /> <br />(l <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />On appeal, Bice restated his arguments from the earlier proceed- <br />ings. The statute in question stated, in relevant part, that "agri- <br />cultural activities conducted on farmland" were protected "from I ) <br />nuisance lawsuits," which could "force the premature removal" of '-J <br />lands from agricultural use. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />42 <br />