Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 23 construction near river property. Accordingly, the court concluded that the City's distinction between platted and unplatted property bore a rational rela- tionship to a legitimate government interest of limiting new construction on property subject to flooding. Thus, the court held that the Ordinance and its distinction between platted and unplatted property satisfied the rational basis standard of scrutiny, and did not violate the equal protection clause of the North Dakota Constitution or the United States Constitution. See also: Teigen v. State, 2008 ND 88, 749 N. W 2d 505 (N.D. 2008). See also: Hanaich, Inc. v. State By and Through Clayburgh, 1997 ND 110, 564 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 1997). Use —Zoning board determines ordinance's definition of "agriculture" use does not include a chicken processing facility Farmer argues board misinterpreted ordinance and facility is allowed by right under ordinance's definition of "agriculture" use Citation: Balady Farms, LLC v. Paradise Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2016 WL 5724905 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA (10/04/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether an ordinance's definition of "agriculture" permitted the processing of chickens raised on the property zoned to permit "agriculture" use. The Background/Facts: Balady Farms owned approximately 23 acres of real property (the "Property") in the Rural Conservation ("RC") District of Paradise Township (the "Township"). Among other things, Balady Farms raised free-range chickens on the Property, with approximately 28,000 chickens on the Property at any one time. Due to the costs of off -site chicken processing, Balady Farms sought to convert an existing storage facility on the Property into a chicken processing facility. The proposed processing facility would process only chickens raised and bred on the farm. In furtherance of its proposal, Balady Farms sought an answer from the Township's zoning authorities as to whether the Township's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") permitted the proposed conversion and use. More specifi- cally, the question to be addressed was whether the Ordinance's definition of "agriculture" use —which was allowed by right in the Township's RC District where the Property was located included a commercial chicken processing facility. The Ordinance defined "agriculture" as follows: "[a]n enterprise that is actively engaged in the commercial production and prepa- ration for market or use of agricultural, agronomic, horticultural, silivicultural and © 2016 Thomson Reuters