Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Page 2 -- May 25, 1999 Agricultural Use-. Owner seeks agricultural exemption after putting pigs on property OHIO (4/14/99)- In 1991, Corbet bought a 5-acre vacant parcel in Chatham Township. Township officials soon noticed several tractors, trailers, and other vehicles parked on the property, and the township sent Corbet a violation no- tice ordering him to remove the vehicles. Two years later, Corbet got building and zoning permits to build a house on the property. About 15 months later the township notified Corbet his permits had expired because he had not started construction. Corbet then excavated a hole and added some concrete blocks for a foundation. The foundation filled with water, and the county building department can- celled the building permit and issued a stop work order. The trailers and other vehicles remained on the property. The township later sued Corbet, asking the court to prohibit him from using the property to store tractors and other vehicles in violation of zoning regulations. Corbet placed pigs on the property and argued he was using the property for agricultural purposes, so it wa~ exempt from local zoning regulations. Un- der state law, municipalities had no authority to prohibit the use of land for agricultural purposes and couldn't prohibit the construction or use of struc- tures used for agricultural purposes. According to:Corbet, he used some of the trailers to store building materials for a barn he planned to build and other trailers to haul hay and bedding material for the pigs. The township claimed that because the vehicles and equipment on Corbet's property weren't being used to legally build a home and weren't incidental to any established residential use, they violated the township's zoning regula- tions. It claimed even if the presence of the pigs meant the land did qualify as an agricultural use, the vehicles and equipment still violated zoning regula- tions because they weren't related to agriculture~ The court determined Corbet wasn't using the property primarily for agri- cultural purposes. It found the numerous trailers and equipment had been idle for years, and that Corbet was trying to circumvent the township's zoning reso- lution while trying to build a home on the property. The court ordered Corbet to remove the vehicles within 30 days unless they were being used to build a legal residence on the premises. Corbet appealed, claiming the township had no right to regulate his property because he had established an agricultural use by putting pigs on the property. DECISION: Alarmed. Corbet had to remove the trailers and equipment. There was no evidence Corbet used the property to raise livestock until 1996, tong after the township filed its enforcement action. The tractors, trail- ers, and trucks had been dormant on the property for more than three years. While Corbet may have begun using the land for agricultural purposes, he failed to show the storage of trailers and equipment was related to'that