Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 4- April 15, 1995 Z.B. before applying for a special exception. The board properly considered County Line's application even though the town could rezone the land before mining actually started. Shamah did not show the zoning laws were likely to change, but merely argued there was a possibility of change. The board properly refused to deny the special exception based on a remote or speculative chance that the zoning laws would change. The board properly granted County Line a special exception because its proposed use complied with all legal requirements and would not harm the general public. County Line complied with the town's zoning ordinance, which required the board to consider the quarry's impact on soil characteristics, noise levels, etc. County Line's experts explained that the quarry would not harm the public, and Shamah did not prove otherwise. The board was not required to predict changes in technology to decide if the quarry would hurt the community 20 years later. Shamah's evidence that his property values could decrease was not enough to outweigh the quarry's evidence suggesting the expansion would not hurt the community. Appeal of Baird, 537 A.2d 976 (1988). Agricultural Use Bankrupt Property Owner Demands a 35-Acre Home Matter of Lloyd, 37 E3d 271 (Wisconsin) 1994 When Lloyd filed for bankruptcy, she owned 113 acres of "exclusively agricultural" land in the township of Empire, Wis. The bankruptcy court ap- proved the sale of her land, but decided Lloyd could keep part of it to build a home. In the township, owners could not build a home on property zoned "exclu- sively agricultural" unless the lot was at least 35 acres. If the property was zoned residential, a home could be built on three acres. Lloyd, a psychotherapist, claimed she was a farmer who boarded horses. Lloyd took crops off the land in earlier years, but when she went bankrupt, she did not earn a substantial part of her income from farming. The record showed Lloyd sold a horse and participated in the Conservation Reserve Program, but was otherwise not involved in farming. Because Lloyd was not a farmer, the bankruptcy court decided three acres was a reasonable amount upon which she could build a house and keep her two horses. The bankruptcy trustee requested a change in zoning from agricultural to residential for the three acres needed to satisfy Lloyd's homestead exemp- tion. The three acres were rezoned to residential. Lloyd appealed, arguing the trustee did not have the authority to have her land rezoned and that she should have been able to keep 35 acres so she could continue farming. Lloyd claimed her lifestyle required her land to remain zoned as exclusively agricultural. , The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's actions, and Lloyd appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the trustee.