by Hannah Dankbar
Town of Trempealeau v. Wendell P. Klein
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, August 18, 2015
Klein owns and operates a farm in Trempealeau, WI. He uses scare guns (a propane cannon) to prevent blackbirds from damaging his crops. In 2013 Trempealeau passed an ordinance requiring anybody wanting to use a scare gun within town limits to obtain a permit. The ordinance places three conditions on permits regarding times of day and months of the year that the guns can be used, distance from other residence of where the gun can be used, and that all guns must be pointed at least forty-five degrees away from neighboring property lines. The town board can exempt a permittee from these conditions after they receive a written explanation of why the conditions plan an undue hardship on the permittee. Klein applied for and received a permit.
On August 10, 2013 Klein was cited for operating a scare gun at less than forty-five degrees from the neighboring property line. Klein pled not guilty and moved to dismiss. He argued that the ordinance was invalid for a number of reasons.
Vested Right. Klein argued that he had a vested right to use scare guns because he, and his father before him, had used scare guns as part of their farming operations before zoning was put into place. The Court of Appeals noted that the scare gun ordinance did not meet the test set forth in previous court cases to qualify the ordinance as a zoning ordinance.
Taking. Klein argues that the ordinance acts as a taking of his property because his crops “will literally be taken from him”. He argues the taking is a regulatory taking which is “a restriction that deprives an owner ‘of all, or substantially all, of the beneficial use of his property.’” The Court disagreed. The ordinance did not deprive Kline of all or substantially all of the beneficial use of his property. Because Klein retains the ability to practice agriculture on his land, this argument fails. Moreover, the ordinance does not prohibit the use of scare guns; it merely regulates their use. There was no evidence that using the scare guns in a manner consistent with the ordinance would still result in a devastating loss of crops.
Trempealeau County’s comprehensive zoning ordinance. Trempealeau County’s comprehensive zoning ordinance § 4.03 states, ““General agricultural practices shall be allowed in all agricultural districts without issuance of a land use permit[.]” Klein argued that this section unambiguously prohibits the Town from requiring him to obtain a permit; however, the scare gun permit is not a land use permit because it does not license a “use.” Trempealeau County’s comprehensive zoning ordinance §4.03(1)(c) lists “barnyards, feedlots, and uses involving agricultural structures” as examples of “general agricultural practices.” The description of structures and locations reinforces the conclusion that the use of scare guns does not constitute a general agricultural practice.
Right to Farm. Klein argued that the statute is preempted by the state’s Right to Farm Law. This law protects agriculture enterprises from nuisance claims. Klein and the Town agreed that the Right to Farm Law protects both agricultural uses and practices. They also agree that the statute sets forth a heightened standard for determining that an agricultural use or practice is a nuisance. Nothing in the statute, however, prevents local governments from regulating agricultural uses and practices without a finding that those uses or practices meet the heightened nuisance standard.
The district court’s judgment in favor of Trempealeau was affirmed.