07-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r John Dalbec July 25.1997 Pages use of the site for horses; c. When the City allowed the horse bam to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of subdivision of the property in 1980, the City did not require the barn be removed. d. In 1987, the City represented to the prior owner that two horses could be kept on the property. While that conclusion may have relied on incorrect infonnation regarding lot size, the current owners relied on this representation - and have had two horses on the site without incident or complaint until the current complaint surfaced. e. The City Council at its discretion can allow the pasture requirement, and hence the overall acreage requirement, to be reduced if it finds that the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. In effect, the City has tacitly granted such reduction by its past inaction. 2. The location and locational relationships of the bam were established prior to adoption of the codes which made the bam location non-conforming. The history of use of the bam for horses and the apparent intent by past and current owners to continue that use, plus the City's lack of action to restrict or eliminate the use when the subdivision occurred, make it difficult to require now that the use be ceased. 3. I find no compelling evidence that suggests the site is causing a pollution problem for the wetland. The enclosure appears to be kept in such a manner that manure does not accumulate to any e.xtent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland (i.e. the wetland perimeter vegetation is not significantly different from that of any other wetland or from other locations around this wetland). It would be very dii.'cult to establish whether nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland near the enclosure are higher than 'normal'. Absent any definite evidence ot a pollution problem, and given the expert opinion of a Livestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is 'extremely minor*, I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is no evidence of an odor problem (and no complaint of one). There is no evidence that the site is harboring rodents, flies or insects (and no complaint that it is). To summarize, my conclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all available information appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the bam and enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. My conclusion in this matter, therefore, is that the two horses and existing facilitieswill be allowed to remain on the property. 1 will recommend to the property owners that they establish measures to