Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 6- February 15, 1995 Z.B. Agricultural Use -- Nursery Product Retailer Claims It's Engaged in Agriculture Bu£lding b~spector of Peabody v. Northeast Nursery Inc., 636 N.E. 2d 269 (Massachusetts) 1994 Cotreau owned and operated Northeast Nursery Inc. on land he owned in the city of Peabody, Mass. The land consisted of three parcels: a 4.4-acre lot in the business-highway zone; an Il-acre lot in a residential zone; and Wildwood II, a completely wooded, residentially zoned lot. A special permit was needed for nursery businesses on residential properties. Northeast sold plants, shrubs and bushes, all of which were bought from other growers for instant resale. Northeast did not grow its own products. The business started on the 4.4-acre lot, then expanded to the ii-acre lot in 1987. Northeast got a special permit to conduct the business on the il-acre lot. After Northeast bought Wildwood II, it stripped the property down to its soil, removing all trees, bushes, and stumps. It did not have a special permit, and the city building inspector ordered it to stop. The inspector did not want Northeast to expand the business onto this residential land without getting a- special permit. Northeast continued to clear the land and refused to apply for the permit. Northeast argued it was exempt from the special permit requirement because a state taw said no zoning ordinance could require a special permit for the use of land for "the primary purpose of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture.'.' The building inspector got a court-order to stop Northeast from using Wildwood II to sell nursery-related products, or to do anything Other than plant and cultivate plants, flowers,· fruits, and vegetables until the city granted it a special.permit. Northeast appealed. ". DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court was correct to find that state law died not exemPt'Northeast from the ordinance's special pei~mit requirement. Northeast sold bushes and trees that arrived at its property ready for immediate resale: It hid hot plant or grow' its products, so it was~not engaged in'·agricuIture or horticulture. Tisbury v. Martha's Vi~eyard Commissio~, 544 N.E. 2d 230 (1989). Needham v. Winslow Nurseries h~c., lll N.E. 2d 453 (19'53). Fees -- Even- Churches Have to Pay for·Fire and Rescue Services Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ Inc., 641 So. 2d 900 (Florida)'1994 . The Saras°ta Church of Christ Inc. ahd other religiOus'orgtinizati°ns own- ing real estate in Sarasota County, Fla., sued the county. They challenged ah': ordinance which required them to pay special assessments for fire and rescue'" services and storm water management services. The churches .had paid for fire