Laserfiche WebLink
October 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Application of Frank, 183 Neb. 722,164 N. W.2d 215 (1969). <br />Use Property owner is issued <br />zoning violation notice for <br />raising fowl in a residential <br />zoning district <br />Property owner claims zoning ordinance, which <br />permits "livestock" in residential zones is <br />"unconstitutionally vague" as to inclusion of fowl <br />Citation: Hatfield v. Board of Supervisors of Madison County, 2017 <br />WL 3452426 (Miss. 2017) <br />MISSISSIPPI (08/10/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a county determination that a property owner violated a zoning <br />ordinance by keeping or raising ducks, geese, or fowl on the property <br />was arbitrary and capricious. It also addressed whether the county zon- <br />ing ordinance, defining uses permitted in agricultural and residential <br />zoning districts, was "unconstitutionally vague" as to whether "live- <br />stock" or "grazing livestock" (permitted in residential zones) included <br />poultry, fowl, and/or birds. <br />The Background/Facts: In July 2012, Arlin George Hatfield, III <br />("Hatfield") purchased property in a residential °subdivision, in a resi- <br />dential zoning district ("R-1"), in Madison County (the "County"). <br />Some time thereafter, Hatfield began raising chickens, guinea fowl, and <br />ducks on the property. Eventually, in February, March, and April 2015, <br />Hatfield was notified by a County zoning administrator that he was in <br />violation of the County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") because <br />"keeping or raising poultry" was neither a permitted or conditional use <br />in an R-1 zoning district. <br />When Hatfield failed to correct the alleged zoning violation, the <br />County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") took up the matter. The <br />Board determined that Hatfield "had violated R-1 zoning by keeping or <br />raising around sixty `ducks, geese and other fowl' on his property." The <br />Board found those "acts were neither a permitted nor a conditional use <br />under R-1 zoning." The Board also denied Hatfield's request to continue <br />keeping or raising fowl on the property. <br />Hatfield appealed the Board's determination. Hatfield argued that the <br />Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by <br />substantial evidence, and was based on an unconstitutionally vague <br />Ordinance section. <br />6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />