I have been meaning to “revisit” this threat since posting my comment (#15). Comments that were made based on conversation with several of the “effected”. And not being as fully “informed” as I should have been so as to be “fair and balanced”. I was not fair and balanced to those I criticized. I don’t agree with their position and the reasons they let the “cat out of the bag” but they were entirely with in their rights. And possibly if I lived on their properties for as long as they have I might feel the same.
I have been flattered that several people have emailed me and or called asking for my advise. Not exactly a land use attorney. I do have a big mouth, big opinions, but I have paid enough for legal advise to be reasonable well versed. Be it horse business and the buying and selling of properties.
The following is one of the emails I received and answered the way I see it based on past experience.
Subject: Horse boarding quote in the chronicle.
Hey there Larry. I am wondering if you can help me with some information. We are in the ending vote in Newlin Twp. for a really bad zoning ordinance against boarding facilities. We are one of the targeted farms. I want to know where you referenced your comment that boarding facilities are considered agricultural. Your quote below.
Even before the law was changed for the boarding of pleasure horses, sport horses and the training of the breeding of Thoroughbred racehorses by those that board for others and or for themselves as their main occupation and livelihood were considered agricultural. I know because that is what I do for a living. But it can’t be a hobby in the eyes of the tax collector.
I am trying to find out if we can use the agricultural protection of our farm if this ordinance passes.
My reply;
I need to go back and read my entire post but I believe you are quoting a part that was in reference to horse businesses being considered an agricultural business. Therefore the “costs of doing business” can be written off as business expenses. Without checking my facts I am pretty sure most states consider pleasure/sport horse operations, boarding, lessons, training for competition, conducting “shows” a “business”. As whether is it considered “agricultural” I am not sure. Breeding, raising, training of Thoroughbreds for racing was treated as a business in this state and with the IRS. Before PA tax law changed a few years ago that gave the same status to Pleasure/sport operations it was not recognized the same as Thoroughbred operations. Be it a Thoroughbred operation and or a Pleasure/sport operation it has to be run as a “business” not a “hobby business”. Tax code both Fed and state goes into detail of the definition.
When we bought our farm in 2005 it had been placed under Act 319, which reduced property taxes as long as it was being used for agricultural purposes. Which was a concern knowing that PA did not recognize “horse operations” as agricultural. We were buying a property to conduct our business a business that I have been doing for over 30 years before moving here. It was and still a real stretch for us to buy this property given how expensive it was a so we had to budget very carefully. In short we were buying a business and needed to make sure it would be treated as such under PA tax code and to maintain its status under Act 319. Otherwise we would have had to pay the property tax difference between an ag property and a non ag property going back more then 10 years. Would have been a deal breaker. As with all properties I have bought over the years in several states I had my attorney go over things. I have know Rick About for years who runs a big TB farm across the street from me to consult with. He is and has been our township supervisor.
I am pretty well versed in “land use” laws, kind of paid for the “degree” with attorney fees over the years. Historical districts “overlay” in Lexington KY and Akien SC. Had property in Boulder CO, which is highly restrictive makes and your problem/restrictions look like child’s play.
I spoke a little out of “turn” in my Chronicle post/comment not being completely informed at the time. While I am completely sympatric I have a feeling you and others are SOL given the fact that there has been an existing ordinance since 1980. Granted they are “upping the ante” and though it is not a “Covenant” that would be found/carried in ones property deed, it was an existing zoning ordinance. That could have been found and reviewed by anyone buying property after 1980. The law calls it “due diligence” and ignorance of is not much of a defense.
A competent real-estate agent should always supply all “land use”, zoning ordinances. But I have found most are self serving. After all they do represent the seller not the buyer. If one does not ask they won’t tell.
PA did pass the “right to farm act” a few years ago. But I don’t think this will be of much help for horse operations and given the fact that your township has had a “land use” zoning ordinance in effect for going on 35 years. This was meant to protect “farmer” cattle, crop and most likely certain types of horse operations in what were very rural areas that became the target of high density sub-division housing that changed the voting “dynamics”. Newbies that didn’t like the smells, sounds, inconveniences of neighboring farms.
Don’t know how your township has changed in the last 35 years. There maybe “defense” to be found using this but that would have to be reviewed by an expert land use attorney.
The fact that it has been stated by Township supervisors that the existing zoning has not be “enforced” until they now there maybe “relieve” to be found under the legal term and defense in such things as being “Arbitrary and Capricious”. They are on the record saying the existing ordinance has not been enforced. Not just for a couple of years but for going on 35 years.
I don’t know the voting “dynamics” of your township. Large horse owning land owners verses smaller “sub-division” types. The supervisors answer to the majority. I can tell you this the vast majority of the public think that anyone that owns a horse let alone lots of them be it a “business” or “own use” think those people are rich. The average “Joe” would think we are rich. We are but “land rich”, “cash poor”. Since the economic crash I haven’t been able to take a vacation in years. Nor be able to afford to hire employees to reduce my 7-365 work load. It is what it is. But until the average “Joe” walks a week in my shoes, I am a rich horse guy. And that’s what the horse operations are up against.
Especially those who’s horse operation is not their sole source of income and livelihood. My advise would be to apply for the variance under existing zoning ASAP. Band together and hire a very good land use attorney to see if there are any options, “law” to fall back on, “grandfather” if the vote goes in the wrong direction. IMO it will. I firmly believe nothing is going to change the zoning ordinance enacted in 1980. Unless a shit load of money is thrown at attorneys. Remember OJ did get away with murder.
Once last thing. I have found “stacking the deck” at township meetings with non residents no matter what their “stature” maybe is counter productive. And can work against you. You need to stack the deck with the little guys. Who understand the township is what it is because of the horse people. Otherwise it would just be another giant sub-division with a couple of parks here and there, lots of traffic and higher taxes for infrastructure.
Sorry to be so long winded. It’s my nature.
Good luck!
Larry
