5/20/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

869r 101 PAGEX89 farming operations may not stand in court. While written disclosure does not eliminate complaints from non -agriculture residents, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Napa County, California; and Fremont County, Idaho all report fewer agriculture/residential conflicts after requiring some type of nuisance disclaimer. A nuisance disclaimer is an acknowledgment or the granting of a right by a property owner or newcomer resident. By executing such a disclaimer the owner of residential property acknowledges that active agricultural operations exist nearby, and that those operations may cause adverse impacts on residential property. Furthermore, by executing a nuisance disclaimer, the residential property owner reduces the likelihood of prevailing if he takes legal action to restrict the agricultural operation and that action is based on adverse impacts caused by the continuance of normal agricultural activities. As noted in the attached memorandum from the Deputy County Attorney, there is a question regarding the legality of certain types of nuisance disclaimers. In planning staff's opinion, the following nuisance disclaimer alternatives should be considered by the county in addition to a physical buffer requirement: Option 1 The developer of a residential subdivision, in the Certificate of Dedication of the plat, could be required to grant an easement over the platted property to the use and benefit of owners of adjoining agricultural operations (with a legal description of the agricultural properties benefitted). Such an easement would subject the platted property to continued noise, odor, spray drift, etc. affects from adjacent active agricultural operations. Option 2 There could be a plat note reflecting an easement recorded off plat of the same nature. Option 3 An acknowledgement could be required to be referenced in a plat note or in private covenant documents, and could also be required from residential building permit applicants. A similar type of process has been in place since 1993 in relation to new residences built in airport noise impact zones. In regard to legal concerns about nuisance disclaimers, please find attached a memo from Deputy County Attorney Will Collins (see attachment #5). As Indian River County continues to grow, land use conflicts will inevitably occur. Most troublesome are uses characterized as NIMBY's (not in my back yard) or LULU's (locally undesirable land uses). Generally, these are landfills, jails, sewage treatment plants, and other similar uses. Besides NIMBY's and LULU's, other uses can create land use conflicts. Industrial facilities or commercial establishments adjacent to single-family residential uses are examples. Even agricultural uses can be incompatible with adjacent single-family residential uses. Compared to some other incompatible land use combinations, the residential/agricultural combination is less of a problem. Unlike other land use conflicts, agricultural use impacts on adjacent residences are often less problematic in terms of extent, frequency, and duration. In fact, many agricultural impacts are seasonal and associated with infrequent activities such as grove spraying. Even more unusual is that agriculture can be an amenity for adjacent residential developments. As with most potential land use conflicts, the principal means of mitigating impacts is through a combination of setbacks and buffering/screening. Given the nature of potential agricultural impacts on adjacent residential uses, the principal issue is whether a residential developer should incur significant costs by setting aside land and planting buffers to mitigate possibly infrequent impacts from property that itself may be converted to residential use in the near future. Based upon how other local governments address the residential/agriculture issue and recognition that land use regulations cannot completely eliminate land use compatibility MAY 20, 1997 24