Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6~ , November 1996 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br /> Mora(orium m Moratorium hog-ties pig farmers' plans for feedlot <br /> Dgncanson v. Board of Supervisors of Danvill~ e Township, <br /> : 55! N. W.2d 248 (Minnesota) 1996 · <br /> <br /> Th~ Duncansons lived in Danville Township, Minn. The township had no <br /> zoning ordinance. <br /> In luly 1995, the Duncansons wanted to build a hog feedlot to accommo- <br /> date 4,$00 hogs On their land. Anticipating that feedlot traffic could damage <br /> the township's roads, they twice met with the toWnship BOard of Supervisors to <br /> discusS, compensation for the damage. At the second meeting, there was dis- <br /> cussioa'about whether the township should adopt a zoning ordinance. <br /> At an Aug. 9 meeting, a guest speaker.talked about what another township <br /> had doi~e with zoning ordinances, and the township's attorney presented a pro- <br /> posed ~noratorium ordinance. The moratorium would prohibit for one year the <br /> constrUction of animal feedlots for more than 300 animals, junkyards, salvage <br /> yards, hazardous Waste facilities, mining and gravel.pits, and tire recycling <br /> facilities. The board planned to meet'on Aug. 29 to discuss the zoning issue. <br /> · The board's next regularly scheduled meeting was Aug. 15. Although there <br /> were nb plans to enact the mbr~torium at that meeting, several citizens attended <br /> who wanted it enacted. Someone called the tOwnship attorney, who confirmed <br /> it woulB be legal to pass the moratorium.immediately. <br />"~" "'"' ': The township passed the moratorium, which was titled, "Interim Zoning <br />.':/. '~"~': :;'~::i Ordinance." The interim ordinance would be effective until Aug. 14, 1996 (one <br /> year la,er).. It authorized a study to "determine ~vhether the ToWnship should <br /> adopt ~ TownShip Comprehensive [Zoning] Plan." · <br /> Th~ Duncansons asked a court to decl~ire the Ordinance was invalid and <br /> that the~ moratorium was arbitrary and discriminatory. ~A state'statute required <br /> that before adopt, ing a zoning ordinance, a town had to hold a hearing that had <br /> been pgblicized at least 10 days in advance. The'Duncansons said the town~iiip. <br /> failed to comply with the statute, and that the ordinance was discriminatory <br /> becaus~ it applied to only them. - '. <br /> court found the ordinance Was validly, enacted, but the moratorium <br /> discriminated against the Duncansons. It granted the Duncans0ns a tempbrary <br /> coUi't order allowing them 'to build the feedl0t. <br /> Th~ township appealed. -' <br /> DECISION: Reversed in part; temporary Order denied. " <br /> Th~ lower court correctly found the ordinance was valid,.but it was wrong <br />:. to find the moratorium discriminated against the Duncansons. <br />. . :.~ i Th~ ordinance was valid because the 10-day notification requirement did <br />': not apply. The requirement was for onlyz, oning ordinances, and the township's <br /> was an iinterim ordihance. Although "zoning" was in the title, the ordinance <br /> met th'0 requirements of an interim Ordinance: It was effective for no longer <br /> than ong year, and the township passed it so it could further investigate adopt-_ <br /> ing a c0,mprehensive plan. <br /> That the moratorium applied to only the Dun'cansons did not necessarily <br /> .mean it kvas discriminatory. The township's board members had neither expertise <br /> <br /> <br />