Court Opinion

ID: 9626038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:59:53.456046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:19.861003
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.
dissenting: In my opinion, the record is sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the feeding operations conducted by the three feed lots in question are purely commercial enterprises, where literally thousands of sheep and cattle belonging to buyers, brokers and owners, are fed and fattened annually by the defendants for profit, and in no sense may this be described as an agricultural pursuit. The feed lots in question are 700 feet from the city limits of Emporia, within the three mile zoning area of the city, and are bounded on the north and east by commercial and residences, on the south by suburban, and on the west by commercial and farming. Clearly, the use of the land and buildings in question is in violation of the Lyon County 1956 Zoning Regulation, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.
The case of Carp v. Board of County Commissioners, 190 Kan. 177, 373 P. 2d 153, is not in point. There, the plaintiff was feeding his own hogs for the market on his own farm. Likewise, the case of Dill v. Excel Packing Co., 183 Kan. 513, 331 P. 2d 539, is not helpful to the defendants. There, the feed lot was six miles from the city limits of Wichita, outside the three mile zoning area. The area was bounded completely on all sides by farms, with the exception of a few suburban tracts. In the opinion it was said:
*568“The prime factor which gives us pause in resolving this case is the location at which the operation of the feed lot is conducted. . . .
“Obviously, the feeding of livestock in any number within the limits of a residential area would be a nuisance. In fact, ordinances have been passed by cities to prevent the maintenance of poultry and livestock within the city limits. What may be a nuisance in one location and subject to abatement may not be a nuisance, however, in another location. . . .
“. . . The area being primarily agricultural, any opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. The standards affecting the value of residence property in an urban setting, subject to zoning controls and controlled planning techniques, cannot be the standards by which agricultural properties are judged.” (1. c. 524, 525.) (Emphasis supplied.)
I would reverse the judgment and permanently enjoin the three defendants from conducting their feeding operations in violation of the zoning regulation.