04/09/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

APRIL 1996 Page 15 homestead property for the January 2, i994 assessment. 6. Petitioner claims the Property is a farm and should be classified as an agricultural homestead. 7. Susan Mauderer, CAE, the Assessor for the City of Maple Grove, reviewed the classification of the Prdperty and concluded that the Property was used primarily as a residence on January 2, 1994 and did not qualify as agricultural land. 8. The property is primarily used by Petitioner as his homestead and is not used primarily for agricultural purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The assessor's classification of the subject property as a residential homestead as of January 2, 1994 is hereby affirmed. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. A STAY OF 15 DAYS IS HEREBY ORDERED. · BY THE COURT, Dorothy A. McCIung, Judge DATED: April 24, 1996 MEMORANDUM The sole issue in this case is the appropriate classification of Petitioner's home situated on 11.53 acres in Maple Grove, Minnesota. In the fall of t993, the Maple Grove assessor reviewed the agricultural homestead classification previously given to thc Propcrty and determined that the Property was primarily used as a residential homestead. For the January 2, 1994 assessment, thc assessor removed the agricultural classification and classified the Property as a residential }mine, stead. Petitioner appeals the reclassification and argues that na~.hing occurred to trigger this change. He testified that he actively cultivates six acres and uses fi)ur acres as pasture for his own horse and other horses boarded on the property. He raises hay, oats and alfalfa on rental acreage near the Property and uses about 75% of the crops in his horse boarding operation and sells the rest. The Property has been classified as an agricultural homestead since 1982 when Petitioner purchased the Property. Susan Mauderer, the current assessor for the City of Maple Grove, and Jim Huble, the previous assessor, both visited the Property to review its classification. Both testified that in their opinion the Property is used primarily as a residential homestead and any agricultural activity is minimal and incidental to its primary use. Ms. Mauderer testified as to the changing character of the City of Maple Grove, a rapidly growing suburb at the northwest corner of Hennepin County. She testified that Petitioner's Property could not support a full- time farming operation. In Minnesota's property classification scheme, agricultural property containing a homestead is classified as class 2a' property and is defined as "contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, primarily used during the preceding year for agricultural purposes.". Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23(c). In 1992, our Supreme Court ruled on a similar fact situation involving Minnesota's "Greenacres" law. At issue was whether property would be eligible for the Greenacres treatment if it was not classified as agricultural. The Supreme Court said: The "primary use" test incorporated in Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23(c.) implies an examination of the specific nature of the property and the use or multiple uses to which that property has been put, together with a subjective balancing of those relative USES. Barron 1992). In Upon review of the record submitted, it is our view that the assessor properly concluded that the primary use of the subject property was as a "residential homestead." While 19 out of the 20 acres of the parcel are used for agricultural purposes, the crops have produced almost insignificant income when compared with the valuation of the homestead situated on the remaining acre. v. Hennepin County, 488 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. the present case, the January 2, 1994 estimated market value for the Property is $162,000, somewhat less than the Barron property, but the remaining facts are strikingly similar to Barron. We conclude that the Rasmussen property, like the Barton property is primarily used as a residential homestead. We affirm the assessor's January 2, 1994 classification of the Property.