Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Page 6 m October :[5, J~996 Z.go though it may have been difficult, Blair could have filed a separate suit to COmpel certification. Also, despite Blair's claim that the board had no record to certify, Blair had a copy of the proceedings he could have given the board for certification. i~ Streidl v. Community General Hospital, 603 A.2d 1011 (1992). :~ Appeal of CrossIey, 432 A.2d 263 (1981). Agricultural Use Couple sells commodities from home in agricultural zone StiIlwater Township v. t~ivard, 547 N. W. 2d 906 (Minnesota) 1996 The Rivards owned 24 acres in Stillwater Township, Minn. When they bought the property in 1972 it was zoned residential/agricultural. The zoning allowed "farming or other agricultural purposes," but did not define that term. The property was later rezoned residential. Agricultural and residential Oses were permitted, and retail sales were prohibited. Nevertheless, from the time they bought the property, the Rivards publicly sold horses, tack, feed and Wood shavings. !~ The permit for the Rivards' barn authorized the housing of livestock, but prohibited commercial use of the barn. The town sent the Rivards a letter. gtating any commercial use violated the ordinance, regardless of whether it related to livestock. The Rivards used the barn to sell and board horses, and ~o sell tack, horse bedding and horse feed. The horse bedding and feed were stored in two illegally parked commer- giaI trailers, which were not fully screened from the view of nearby properties land public streets (a violation of the township ordinance). Several other items ~he Rivards stored on the property, including a horse trailer, fuel tank, a small grader and a manure spreader, were also in public view. Although zoning regulations allowed only one horse per two acres of land, ~he number of horses on the Rivards' property often exceeded 12. In some iYears, the Rivards had traded about 400 horses, keeping 20 to 30 horses on ithe property at one time. i In 1989, a county planner inspected the property and told the Rivards i · i~hey violated zoning. The planner reinspected the propertY the following imonth. The township told the Rivards they would be prosecuted if the viola- [~o s weren't corrected within a month. The Rivards never corrected the prob- ~lems. i In July 1991, the township filed a criminal complaint against the Rivards. !In October, the township agreed to dismiss the case as long as the Rivards i: i kept their property free from trash and debris, removed an advertising sign, ':and applied for rezoning or an ordinance text amendment by mid-March 1992. i In April 1992, the Rivards applied for a zoning ordinance text amend- ~ment/conditional use permit to allow retail sales as a conditional use for a horse training and boarding facility. The township denied'the application, i finding a planned-unit-development permit would better avoid opening up