02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 25, 2009/ Volume 3 I No. 24 Zoning Bulletin with Keene, holding that the Wilsons' Horse Facility activities were . prohibited in the Rural Residential district. The court explained that the county development code (the "Code") specifically required that "[wJhere a proposed use could be said to fall within more than one category... [the) use shall be placed in the most specific category in which it fits." Which category a use niost closely fit into depended "on the description of the use category and the ex- amples of uses in the category." In other words, "when a use or activ- ity falls into a category of permissive uses, but more closely falls into . a category that is prohibited . . , the latter trU)llpS the former and the activity must be prohibited." The court determined that the Wilsons' Horse Facility activities most closely fell into the category of "commercial: agriculture-related" uses, which were prohibited in the Rural Residential district. The Code specificallydefiued "commercial: agriculture-related uses" as including the stabling and boarding of horses and riding academies. . In ~eaching its conclusion, the court rejected theWilsons' claim that the Horse Facility activities fell under the' permitted "recreation: activity-based" category of uses. Sucll uses required a "facility, such as a court, field, or structure ... to be used for sports and recreation." The Wilsons' Property, found the court, had no such "facility"; it had only "fields, trees, [the Wilsons') home, and the barn." Nor, found the court, did the Horse Facility activities fall under the "recreation: re- source-based" use category. The Code gave examples of such uses, in- cluding parks and beaches. Here, there was "no natural resource that [was] the basis of the attraction to the Wilsons' property remotely re- senibling a beach or park" "Horseback riding in a rural setting" was not, said the court, a natural resource recognized under the Code. If that were the case, "then all a person would need to qualify for a SUP [under that category] [would be] a rural piece of property, a horse and saddle, and a horseback ride." . The court concluded. that the ZBA had erroneously issued the SUP to th~ Wilsons in violation of the Code. See also: Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000). 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 86 /.--') , , [ , . "') L) I- i I ! !