Laserfiche WebLink
October 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />them. The court said that the race car activities were not, as the DiMat- <br />tias had argued, "automatically a lawful accessory use" simply because <br />"private garages" were listed as an accessory use for residential <br />properties. While a private garage for "storage" was a permitted acces- <br />sory use under the Zoning Ordinance, use of the garage for building, <br />repairing, and transporting race cars was not an explicit permitted use, <br />noted the court. Moreover, private garages were not permitted regard- <br />less of their relationship to the residential use of the property; they were <br />only permitted if accessory to the dwelling. Further, the fact that the <br />race car activities were a hobby, as emphasized by the DiMattias, and <br />were not commercial, was not determinative as to whether they quali- <br />fied as an accessory use, said the court. Even if the use was a hobby or <br />recreational activity, as claimed by the DiMattias here, it would not be a <br />permitted accessory use if the type and intensity of the activity was not <br />subordinate and incidental to and customarily associated with the pri- <br />mary permitted use of the property (i.e., here as a residence), said the <br />court. <br />See also: Rudolph v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Cambria Tp., 839 A.2d <br />475 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). <br />See also: Sky's the Limit, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Tp., <br />18 A.3d 409 (Pa. Commw Ct. 2011). <br />Use County zoning <br />administrator issues permit for <br />hog confinement unit <br />Neighbors seek court order compelling revocation <br />of permit, arguing it is not a permitted use under <br />the county zoning ordinance <br />Citation: Hoffman v. Van Wyk, 2017 SD 48, 900 N.W.2d 596 (S.D. <br />2017) <br />SOUTH DAKOTA (08/09/17)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a proposed hog containment facility, which was located in an <br />agricultural district, was a permitted use, without the need for a vari- <br />ance or conditional use permit, under county zoning. <br />The Background/Facts: Douglas Luebke ("Luebke") owned 160 <br />acres of land in an agricultural district in Douglas County (the <br />"County"). In 2015, Luebke applied for and received from the County's <br />Planning and Zoning Administrator (the "PZA") a building permit for a <br />hog confinement unit on the land. <br />10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />