Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

May 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin could therefore use their Property as a hobby farm because the County could not define or restrict such a farm since the statute provided that "there can be no termination or restriction" of an agricultural nonconforming use. The County disagreed. The County contended that the statute did not give the Pahls "free reign to engage in unlimited agricultural pursuits," and that pursuant to the statute, the Pahls were still required to comply with the County Zoning Ordinance. The County filed a legal action against the Pahls. The County argued that the Property was located in a residential subdivision and did not qualify as a hobby farm. The County sought an injunction against the Pahls use of their property. The superior court issued judgment in favor of the Pahls. The court acknowledged that since 1995 the Property had been zoned residential, but the court also found that since 1957, the County's Comprehensive Plan had clas- sified the Property for "agricultural use." The court concluded that the Prop- erty met the statutory definition of agricultural nonconforming use because it was an agricultural use consistent with a comprehensive plan prior to the rezoning and subdividing of the land for residential purposes. The court denied the injunctive relief that the County had sought. The County appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed, and matter remanded. The Court of Appeals of Indiana held that even assuming that the Property qualified as an agricultural nonconforming use, pursuant to the statute (Ind. Code § 36-7-4-616(f)(2)), the agricultural use of the land still had to meet the "requirements to which conforming agricultural use land is subject under the . . . [Z]oning [O]rdinance." (Ind. Code § 36-7-4-616(f)(2)).) The court found that the text of the statute was clear and unambiguous. The court found that with that text, the Legislature intended Ind. Code § 36-7-4- 616(0 to "operate as a limitation on a landowner's right to exercise an agricul- tural nonconforming use . . . ." In other words, whether or not the Property qualified to be treated as an agricultural nonconforming use under the statute, the Zoning Ordinance provisions governing hobby farms still applied to the Pahls' Property. The court determined that the Pahls' Property would not qualify as a hobby farm under the Zoning Ordinance because the Pahls kept a substantial number of animals on their 10.08 -acre lot, which the Zoning Ordinance prohibited on lots smaller than 20 acres, and because 80% of the platted lots in their subdivi- sion were not five acres or more, as required by the Zoning Ordinance for a hobby farm in a subdivision. The court concluded that in failing to apply the relevant portions of the Zoning Ordinance to the Pahls' .use of the land, the trial court had erred in denying the County's request for an injunction. Case Note: The Pahls had also argued that because their use of the land was agricultural, the 4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters