Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

October 15, 1996 -. Page 7 the possibility of retail sales throughout the district. When the Rivards agreed to apply for that kind of permit, the township dropped the criminal charges. The township recommended approval of the planned-unit-development permit as long as the Rivards gave additional information such as a descrip- tion of the proposed commercial enterprise, a detailed map of the site and proposed hours of operation. After the Rivards failed to provide the informa- tion, the township sued them for the continued zoning violations. Meanwhile, the Rivards applied for a planned-unit-development permit. The township said the application was incomplete because the Rivards failed to include the requested information. About eight months later, the Rivards . filed a "final" application. They left out the requested information. The township asked a court to stop the Rivards from continuing to violate the ordinance. The Rivards argued the township gave up the right to enforce the ordinance through its own inaction. (The Rivards had been publicly con- ducting retail sales from their property since 1972.) The court found the township could not enforce the ordinance against the Rivards.iAccording to the court, the Rivards were conducting "agricultural retail sales," which were permitted under "farming and other agricultural purposes." It ordered the township to issue them a planned-unit-development permit. The township appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The trial court improperly ordered the township to grant the planned- unit-development permit. The township was not prevented from enforcing its zoning ordinance. The case was returned for the trial court to decide whether the Rivards' use of the property actually was permitted under zoning laws. The township's failure to take action against the Rivards earlier did not prevent it from enforcing the zoning ordinance. Shortly after the Rivards bought the property, the township told them retail sales were prohibited. The Rivards ignored the notice. The Rivards were conducting a retail and supply business'for the general public. The business was an independent productive activity that was not carried on as part of an agricultural function. For example, illegally parking the trailers did not affect crop and animal production. They also allegedly violated the zoning ordinance by keeping too many horses on the property. A court had to decide whether the Rivards' uses Were agricultural. De- spite its finding that the ordinance permitted the useS~]he trial court did not conclusively resolve the issue. It should have considered additional evidence about the nature and volume of the Rivards' activities. Farmington Township v. High Plains Coop., 460 N. W. 2d 56 (7_990). Farmegg Products v. Humboldt County, 7_90 N. W. 2d 454 (7_97J). Ordinance -- Is family's deck a covered porch under ordinance? City of Fargo v. Ness, 557_ N.W.2d 790 (North Dakota) 7_996 The Nesses owned a single-family home in the city of Fargo, N.D.