Court Opinion

ID: 9581602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:16:39.199765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:07.256182
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KEENAN, with whom JUSTICE LACY joins,
concurring.
I agree that the trial court erred in concluding that the landowners’ use of their property qualified as a “preserve and conservation area” under the Madison County Zoning Ordinance (the Ordinance). Nevertheless, I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s analysis that the land use in question was a “nudist club.”
“Use,” as defined in the Ordinance, is “[t]he principal purpose for which a lot ... is or may be used, occupied or maintained.” Madison County Zoning Ordinance § 21-202. Thus, by definition, a ‘ ‘use’ ’ describes the purpose for which a parcel of land is or may be utilized. The term “use” has also been defined as including “occupations and activities of persons occurring on the land.” 8 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25.01, at 9 (3d ed. rev. vol. 1991).
*553In the case before us, the purpose for which the land is being used is that of a private, recreational facility. The fact that the users of this recreational facility are unclothed does not alter the character of the land use. Here, as shown by the record, the specific activities conducted on the land are playing volleyball on a volleyball court, cooking food in an outdoor barbecue pit, swimming in a cement-bottom pond, and playing horseshoes in a horseshoe pit, as well as consumption of food in a picnic area and the use of hiking trails, campsites, a children’s play area, an outhouse, and a solar shower.
The majority’s characterization of the above land use as a “nudist club” improperly focuses on whether the people participating in these activities are attired, rather than on the activities and facilities which themselves impact the land. This distinction is critical in the analysis of an “inclusive” ordinance, such as the one before us because, under the majority’s view, a governmental entity can secure the exclusion of any land use simply by assigning it a label not found in the ordinance. Here, the majority’s characterization of the land use as a “nudist club” bears no relationship to how the land itself is being used. Lacking such a nexus, this use classification is invalid. See 1A Edward H. Zeigler, Jr., Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning § 2.03, at 2-29 (4th ed. 1992).
Since the landowners’ use, as shown by the record, is that of a private, recreational facility, I would hold that, as a matter of law, it does not qualify as a “preserve and conservation area” under the Ordinance. In reaching this conclusion, I express no opinion whether the landowners would qualify under the Ordinance for a special use permit to operate as a private playground or camp because that issue is not before us in this appeal.