Opinion ID: 2631843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: White Pine Activities

Text: [¶ 19] The Thompsons claim that the district court erred in finding the activities relating to White Pine are not authorized within an agricultural district (A-1) zone. The Thompsons cite the language of the applicable zoning regulations which allows outdoor recreational facilities for winter sports incidental to agricultural use. Arguing that we are required to give this language the least restrictive interpretation, the Thompsons claim that the activities relating to White Pine which occur on their property involve winter sports incidental to agricultural use. [¶ 20] The Sublette County zoning regulations provide in relevant part as follows: Section 3. Authorized Uses. The following uses shall be authorized in the various zoning districts, provided that they conform to the applicable development standards and conform to the applicable goals, policies and guidelines of the Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: ... b. In the Agricultural District (A 1) (1) General agricultural uses; ... (3) Outdoor recreation facilities for hunting, fishing, horseback riding, hiking or winter sports uses incidental to the principal agricultural use[.] [¶ 21] The Thompsons claim that the White Pine operations which occur on their property are permissible under section 3.b.(3) of these regulations as winter sports uses incidental to the principal agricultural use. The district court rejected this argument on the basis of its findings that the principal use of the Thompson property is not agricultural and, therefore, the White Pine operations were not incidental to the principal agricultural use as required by the regulations. The district court reached this conclusion based upon the evidence presented that the Thompsons purchased the property in question because of its value to Logcrafters, the log home building enterprise, rather than for its value as a ranch and that Logcrafters, rather than the ranching operation, produces the majority of the income on the property. [¶ 22] In reaching its findings, the district court relied on cases from other jurisdictions in which courts have attempted to define incidental use as the term is commonly used in zoning regulations. In Lawrence v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of North Branford, 158 Conn. 509, 264 A.2d 552 (1969), the court defined incidental use as a use which is not the primary use of the property but rather one which is subordinate and minor in significance as compared to the primary use. The court also said that, to constitute an incidental use, the use must be attendant or concomitant to the primary use. The court suggested that the following factors be considered in determining whether a use is incidental: the size of the lot in question, the nature of the primary use, the use made of adjacent lots by neighbors, and the economic structure of the area. [¶ 23] Applying these factors to the evidence before it, the district court concluded that the primary use of the Thompson property was not agricultural but was for operations associated with Logcrafters and, therefore, the White Pine operations were not incidental to a primary agricultural use as required by the regulations. From the record before us, we cannot say that the district court erred in reaching this conclusion and holding that the White Pine activities are not authorized under the regulations. [¶ 24] Affirmed.