Plaintiffs own two adjacent parcels of land in the city, referred to as the north and south parcels. Both parcels are zoned “R-1D,” or “single-family residential,” under the zoning ordinance. Thus, the parcels can be used for the purposes described in §§ 10.00.00 – 10.20.08 of the ordinance. Section 10.20.00 describes the “principal uses permitted” and provides no building or land shall be used and no building erected except for one or more of the specified uses. “Agriculture” is specified as a permitted principal use of property zoned R-1D. The ordinance defines “agriculture” as “[f]arms and general farming, including horticulture, floriculture . . . .” The defendants did not contest the floriculture and horticulture occurring on plaintiffs’ property were “agriculture” and thus, a principal permitted use of the property. Rather, defendants appeared to claim while the use was permitted, the two greenhouses, pole barn, and cold frames were not permitted because they were in violation of other zoning ordinance provisions. Defendants argued they were all “accessory buildings” or “accessory supplemental buildings” under the ordinance and thus, subject to certain regulations. The court disagreed, concluding the buildings did not meet either definition as set forth in the ordinance. Pursuant to the definition of “accessory building” in § 04.20.01, if the greenhouses, pole barn, and cold frames were not a barn, a garage, or a storage building/shed as defined by the ordinance, they were not “accessory buildings. The buildings did not meet any of those definitions. Section 04.20.03 defined an “accessory supplemental building” in a manner contemplating a residential use as the main property use by its reference to a “‘building used by the occupants of the principal building for recreation or pleasure . . . .’” There was no evidence the plaintiffs’ greenhouses and cold frames were used “‘for recreation or pleasure.’” Rather, the evidence showed they were used in conjunction with their horticulture and floriculture commercial business located on the south parcel.
Papadelis v. City of Troy, no. 286136 (MI App. 12/15/2009)
The unpublished opinion can be accessed at: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2009/121709/44574.pdf
This abstract appears in the Michigan Bar E-Journal (1/04/2010)
What am I missing? This seems like a ridiculous outcome.
By: Liz Ryan Cole on January 14, 2010
at 10:07 am
Dear Liz,
It’s not ridiculous at all. Just because the buildings are used for food related activities doesn’t mean that they meet the definitions. Agriculture uses in the context of zoning, protecting the neighbors, does not include a hodgepodge of buildings. The term “accessory use” is open to a whole range of misuse that really affect the quality of the neighbor’s property uses. In Steamboat Springs CO, for instance, the former president of the city council claimed that multiple heating and plumbed rooms in multiple detached buildings was “accessory” and claimed that the definition of building area as enclosed space didn’t apply to him. He was apparently planning to open a bring your horse bed and breakfast establishment. I had kids and a single family home adjoining and didn’t want loads of strangers and their horses galloping in front of my house. The enclosed greenhouses described in this case could have been used to grow pot and might have attracted organized crime.
Have you heard of a “taking in steps”? In the context of zoning rights one form that has is to build claiming one use and then switch the use. For instance, my former neighbor in Steamboat built a 2000 + square foot two story building with central heating and plumbing and claimed it was a two car garage with storage “accessory to the garage”. How credible is that?
By: Kay Sieverding on January 14, 2010
at 11:23 am
My reaction, exactly. If agriculture is specifically permitted, this negates the clear meaning of that by banning the accessory structures necessary to carry on those practices?
Sounds like another case of sloppy drafting. My local ordnance, even here in over-regulated California, isn’t this goofy.
By: Bill on January 14, 2010
at 12:25 pm