Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Agricultural Use-Farmer claims business exempt from conditional use permit requirement Zoning ordinance allows farmers to sell own produce without permit Citation: Tillman v. Watson, 2007-0hio-2429, 2007 WL 1454781 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Champaign County 2007) OHIO (05/18/07)-Watson owned a 924-acre farm in the township of Salem. Watson used approximately 55 acres of the land to grow "nontraditional" crops, such as pumpkins, sweet com, tomatoes, In- dian com, peppers, asparagus, flowers, herbs, and berries, which he sold at a farmer's market-also located on the property. Tillman, the town's zoning inspector, found that the farmer's mar- ket was being operated without any conditional use or other zoning permits and that signs advertising the store were in violation of the zoning code. Tillman began a legal proceeding against Watson, seek- ing to stop the alleged violations. Watson countered that there was a "farm market exception" in the zoning code that applied to his prop- erty, and, therefore, the toVitilship had no authority to impose zoning regulations on the operation of the market. The primary issue at trial was whether more than 50 percent of Watson's gross income from the operation of the farm market was de- rived from produce raised on farms that he oVitiled or operated him- self, which would determine whether Watson needed a conditional use permit. The exception applied only to businesses where the majority of the income came from items that were grown or produced by the seller (as opposed to items bought for resale). _After considering evi- dence on these other matters, the court found in Tillman's favor. Specifically, the court found that: Watson failed to prove that the farm market exemption applied to his business, a trailer used to adver- tise the market was not permitted under the zoning regulations, and a conditional use permit was required 'CO operate the business. Watson was ordered to "remove and abate" the infractions found by the court. Watson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred because Till- man had not presented "competent, credible evidence" to support the claims that the violations existed. Watson also argued that Tillman did not present evidence that had "substantial, probative value" that showed the farm market exemption did not apply to him, and, thus, a "directed verdict" should have been granted to him. Decision: Affirmed. 4 100