Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

96 Page 6 -- January 25, 2005 g.g. the land was located. A neighboring property owner sued, arguing Cook and Sorensen could not avoid the subdivision ordinance with their planned development. The court ruled in favor of the neighbor. Cook and Sorensen appealed, arguing the planned single-family residences and guest lodge had enough incidental agricultural use to be covered by the exemption. DECISION:Affirmed. The incidental agricultural use of the land was insufficient to invoke the agricultural exemption. A~m-iculture meant farming, namely using the land to raise crops or live- stock] The county zoning ordinance defined "agriculture" as "the process of raising field, horticultural, or garden crops or produce or raising of domestic animals, fowl, or honeybees for the Purpose of commercial or home crop pro- dUcdon.'' Cook and Sorensen argued that their land fit within the agriculture ex- emption because "agricultural purposes" included all uses permitted in the Agriculture, Large Increment zone, such as single-family reJidences, manu- faCtured home subdivisions, churches, public parks, and sewage or water pUmping stations. However, the court determined the definition of agricul- tural land was not defined by the uses that were permitted in the Agricul- ture, Large Increment zone. Otherwise, the entire subdivision ordinance would be rendered meaningless if landowners could use the. exemption, so long as. they participated in one of the several uses permitted in the agricul- tural zone. Land was not considered agricultural merely because there was some minor incidental use for a garden or to keep a cat; Consequently, the division of land for the purpose of developing single-family residences and a guest lodge was not an agricultural purpose. see also.'iEvans v. Teton County, 73 P3d 84 (2003).. see also: W. Heritage Insurance Co. v. Green, 54 P. 3d 948 (2002). Conditional Use-- City denies permit to proposed crematorium Cites health danger to community water supply Citation: Roselawn Cemetery v. City of Roseville, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A04-672 (2004) MINNESOTA (11/23/04) --Roselawn Cemetery submitted an application to the City of Roseville for a conditional-use permit to build a crematorium on its property. Roselawn was within a residential neighborhood, and the res~ ervoir that provided the City of Saint Paul with water was approximately 2,500 feet away. © 2005 Quinlan PubLishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0Q48.