Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Page 4 --August 10, 1998 Z.B. The township had a rational basis for passing the ordinance. Residents had voiced strong complaints about the odor emanating from feedlots, and the ordi- nance was designed to increase the distance between residences and feedlots to minimize the impact of odor. The township held several public meetings and relied on the expertise of township board members, who were farmers, in pass- ing the ordinance. Moreover, the ordinance recognized that feedlot owners could buy additional land to meet the setbacks, so it didn't' unreasonably limit the development of feedlots. see also: Blue Earth County Pork_Producers Inc. v. County of BIue Earth, 558 N. W. 2d 25 (1997). see also: Board of Supervisors v. ValAdCo, 504 N. W.2d 267 (1993). Zoning Violation -- Can neighbors sue to remove illegal dog kennel? Citation: Williams v. Hertzwig, Supreme Court of New YOrk, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., No. 97-10120 (1998) The Williamses had lived in Pawling, N.Y., for more than 50 years. In 1995, the Hertzwigs bought an adjoining parcel and built a dog kennel. The Hertzwigs' dog kennel had connected outdoor dog runs that allowed dogs they bred to move freely between the kennel building and the outdoor runs. According to the Williamses, whenever a person or animal was within sight or hearing of the many dogs living in the kennel, the dogs barked inces- santly. The Williamses said this prevented them from enjoying the peaceful and quiet use of their home. The Hertzwigs applied for a variance that would allow them to operate a commercial dog kennel on their property, seeking to bring the kennel into com- pliance with the town's zoning ordinance. The town denied their request, but the Hertzwigs continued to operate the illegal kennel. The Williamses sued the Hertzwigs. They sought a court order preventing the Hertzwigs from running a kennel and maintaining outdoor dog runs on their property. The court dismissed the Williamses' complaint. It found they had no right to enforce the zoning ordinance against the Hertzwigs because they failed to prove the zoning violations reduced the value of their property. The Williamses appealed. DECISION: Reversed, returned for a trial. Not only could the Williamses sue the Hertzwigs to enforce the zoning ordinance, but they were also entitled to a court order temporarily prohibiting the Hertzwigs from operating the dog kennel pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The Williamses didn't have to prove the illegal kennel reduced the value of their home in order to sue to enforce the zoning ordinance. That the Williamses' property was next door to the Hertzwigs' property was enough to infer that the Williamses suffered damages due to the illegal kennel.