Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 - July 25, 1997 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />i <br />t <br />I <br />r <br />. <br />1 <br />1 <br />-I <br />! <br />; <br /> <br />structures, not farm structures, so they fell under the zoning regulations. <br />According to the township, Premium failed to exhaust its administrative <br />remedies because it should have applied to the zoning board for a variance <br />before going to court. Premium argued it didn't need to exhaust its administrative <br />remedies, because it challenged the township's authority to impose the regula- <br />tions in the first place. <br />The court granted Premium judgment without a trial, and the township <br />appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The township couldn't enforce the setback requirements on Premium's <br />structures. <br />The Missouri statute explicitly exempted farm buildings and structures from <br />zoning regulation. Premium's feedlots and lagoons were farm, not agricultural, <br />structures. Hog farming was just that - farming. Therefore, any structure built <br />to support that activity was considered a farm structure. <br />Premium also was correct to challenge the township's attempts to combat <br />what it termed a "public nuisance." Townships in Missouri didn't have the <br />authority to prosecute nuisance actions, and they couldn't infer that authority <br />from their mandate to protect the community's health, safety, and welfare. <br />Premium didn't need to exhaust its administrative remedies. Such remedies <br />didn't need to be exhausted in cases where no adequate resolution could result <br />from the administrative process. When a party challenged a municipal entity's <br />authority to regulate, a court was the appropriate forum for settling such disputes. <br />see also: Council House Redevelopment Corporation v. Hill, 920 S. vv.2d <br />890, 892 (1996). <br />Decoster l~ Franklin County, 497 N. vv.2d 849 (1993). <br /> <br />:f <br /> <br />'.~ <br /> <br />Taking - Can owner claim taking ifhe knew about lot's restrictions when <br />buying it? <br />Myron v. City of Plymouth, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Docket No. C3- <br />96-2078 (Minnesota) 1997 <br />Myron owned a corner lot in a Plymouth, Minn., residential zone. For years, <br />Myron couldn't build on the property because complying with the 25-foot <br />setback requirement would mean violating the minimum building-pad size. <br />Nine years after buying the property, Myron twice applied for variances <br />from the setback requirement. The city council denied both requests, finding <br />Myron knew that a variance was necessary to build on the property when he <br />bought it. As a result, the council determined, Myron's hardship was self created <br />and could not be considered undue hardship. <br />According to Minnesota statute, a property owner was considered to suffer <br />undue hardship when existing laws prevented the property from being put to <br />reasonable use, and when those circumstances were unique to the property and <br />not created by the landowner. <br />Arguing the city's actions amounted to a taking, Myron asked a court to q7 <br />