Laserfiche WebLink
John Dalbec <br />July 25,1997 <br />Page 4 <br />The property owners do not let manure accumulate to a point where it w’ould harbor <br />rodents, flies or insects. Staff has visited the site and has observed that such noxious <br />conditions do not exist. <br />During my inspections of the site on June 11 and July 2,1997 1 observed no excessive or <br />malodorous aromas. <br />* There was no accumulation of manure and water on the site that would indicate a <br />chronic mucky situation that could lead to a continuous odor or runoff problem. <br />During the July 2 inspection, which was the morning after a heavy rain, I found no <br />indications that manure had been transported off the site to the wetland by runoff. <br />While there was not a dense vegetative ground cover within the enclosure during both my <br />inspections, about half of the enclosure does have some vegetative cover, and there was no <br />indication on July 2 that the area enclosed was eroding over the driveway and into the <br />wetland. <br />I did observe that the driveway gravel had washed down hill from the east and was <br />a potential source of sedimentation to the wetland, which should be resolved by the property <br />owners who share that driveway. <br />Smith/Murphy have consulted with an expert from the University of Miimesota, who <br />indicates in the attached letter that in his opinion, "the impact to the wetland from <br />runoff through this lot is extremely minor". He also indicated that with only two <br />horses, this site does not qualify as a feedlot, and with only two horses the amount <br />of manure to be dealt with is minimal. <br />This site does not strike me as an eyesore, and while I could see no visible indications of <br />runoff leading to the wetland, such runoff could possibly occur. Berming around the north <br />and west fence lines might help control runoff to some extent, although I have no compelling <br />information that leads me to conclude that it is necessary. <br />Conclusions <br />1. The City would have a difficult time simply requiring that one or both horses be removed <br />from the site due merely to not meeting the total acreage requirement (which is calculated <br />on the basis of pasture acreage requirements) for the following reasons: <br />a. Horses have apparently been kept at the site on a regular basis since prior to <br />the codes which established minimum acreage requirements; <br />b. There has been no apparent intent by the current or past owners to abandon