Laserfiche WebLink
NOVEMBER 1993 .- - -~ <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23(c) (underscoring <br />supplied). <br /> It is clear that minimal agricultural usc is not suffi- <br />cient to qualify property for agricultural classification if <br />thc primary use is residential. Kagel v. County of tteh- <br />nepin, Fitc No. TC-8132 (Minn. Tax Ct. May 22, <br />1989); Walthall v. County of Wadena, File No. 9843 <br />(Minn. Tax Ct. Mar. :20, 1985). Wc arc satisfied fol- <br />lowing our review of the facts of this case that the pri- <br />mary use of thc Property is as a homestead for the Otto <br />family.. We affirm the assessor's rcsidcntiaI classifica- <br />tion. <br /> <br /> <br />