Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

November 10, 2011 ]Volume 51 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin farming, dairying, pasturage ... and animal ... husbandry (including the breeding and raising of horses as an occupation." The LeComptes appealed. They argued that commercial horse board- ing was a permitted agricultural use under the Code. They argued that the terms "breeding and raising of horses" encompassed the boarding of horses. The LeComptes also focused on the term "including" that Was used in § 5 -5 -1's definition of "agriculture." They argued that the use of the term "including" meant that the list of agriculture uses was illustra- tive not exhaustive. They contended that since the Village referred to the "breeding and raising of horses," the Village intended for the commer- cial boarding of horses to be a use included in that list of permitted "ag- riculture" uses. The LeComptes further argued that their operation of a commercial boarding facility was permissible because § 5- 3 -4(A) of the Code restricted the Village from "impos[ing] regulations or requir[ing] permits with respect to land used ... for agricultural purposes." The Village disagreed. It maintained that the commercial boarding of horses was not a permitted use in an R -1 zoned district. It further main- tained that the LeComptes' commercial boarding facility was not com- patible with the other single - family residences in the R -1 zoned district. The Village's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA ") found: (1) that the LeComptes were operating a commercial boarding facility in an R -1 zoned district; (2) that the commercial boarding of horses was not a per- mitted agricultural use in an R -1 zoned district; and (3) that because the commercial boarding of horses was not a permitted agricultural use, % 5- 3 -4(A) did not apply. The LeComptes appealed. The circuit court affirmed the ZBA's decision. The LeComptes again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Appellate Court of Illinois held that the LeComptes' commercial boarding of horses was not "agriculture" and thus was not permitted in their R -1 district. The court agreed with the LeComptes' argument that the use of the term "including" in the Code's definition of "agriculture" meant the list was only partial and not exhaustive. However, the court said that unless the boarding of horses was "similar to other uses in the definition," the boarding of horses could not be said to be a use meant to be included in that list. Analyzing dictionary definitions of "breeding and raising" (uses specifically listed as "agriculture" under the Code) and "boarding," the court found that "a person Who boards horses engages in different acts from a person who breeds and raises horses." The court also found that the Code's definition of "animal husbandry" —a use permitted as an ag- riculture use under the Code did not include the commercial board- ing of horses as part of its definition. The court thus concluded that the 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters