Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Z.B. July 25, 1997 - Page 3 could change any zoning regulations, but did not require a' final commission report before the council could hold hearings. Both the owners and the city asked for judgment without a trial. The court granted the city judgment, finding no violation of due process. The owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The city followed the proper procedure for rezoning as outlined in the city code - not the subsection the owners cited, but the one that governed changes in the zoning ordinance. For a rezoning matter, the council didn't have to wait for a final commission report before it held hearings. In addition, the city followed the code's procedures for notification. It had the notice published twice before the hearing, as the code required, and included the necessary information concerning the hearing and the issue under consideration. The owners' due process rights weren't violated. see also: Chapman v. Wells, 557 N.lV:2d 730 (1996). City of Fargo v. Ness, 529 N. W2d 576 (1995). qto Setback Requirement - Can township regulate hog-farming structures as agricultural? Premium Standard Farms Inc. v. Lincoln Township of Putnam County, Supreme Court of Missouri, Docket No. 79107 (Missouri) 1997 In April 1994, Premium Standard Farms bought more than 3,000 acres, zoned agricultural, in Lincoln Township, Mo., for hog farming. On the property, caned White Tail Farm, Premium built 96 hog barns, divided among 12 sites on the property. Each site had a lagoon to store and break down hog waste. In June 1994, the township adopted zoning regulations establishing setback requirements for lagoon systems and minimum distances from residences and dwellings for livestock feedlots. A Missouri statute, cited by the township in its new regulations, permitted municipalities to regulate agricultural areas but prohibited them from regulating "land, used or to be used for the raising of crops, orchards or forestry or with respect to the erection, maintenance, repair, alteration or extension of farm buildings or farm structures." In July 1994, the township's code enforcement officer sent Premium a letter reminding it of the new regulations. Soon after, Premium asked a court to prevent the township from enforcing its regulations. It requested judgment without a trial. Premium said its buildings and sewage lagoons were farm structures and exempt from the setback requirements. The township countersued, arguing it should be allowed to enforce its regulations for public nuisance concerns. It said that while the statute didn't explicitly give them the authority to bring nuisance actions, that was implied in its responsibility to protect the community's health, safety, and welfare. Premium claimed the township couldn't bring public nuisance claims. The township also claimed Premium's feedlots and lagoons were agricultural