Laserfiche WebLink
John Dalbec <br />July 25,1997 <br />Pages <br />c. <br />d. <br />e. <br />use of the site for horses; <br />When the City allowed the horse bam to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of <br />subdivision of the property in 1980. the City did not require the bam be <br />removed. <br />In 1987, the City represented to the prior owner that two horses could be kept <br />on the property. While that conclusion may have relied on incorrect <br />information regarding lot size, the current owners relied on this representation <br />and have had two horses on the site without incident or complaint until the <br />current complaint surfaced. <br />The City Council at its discretion can allow the pasture requirement, and <br />hence the overall acreage requirement, to be reduced if it finds that the horses <br />do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not <br />require pasture for feed purposes. In effect, the City has tacitly granted such <br />reduction by its past inaction. <br />2. The locaUon and locational relationships of the bam were established prior to adoption of the <br />codes which made the bam location non-conforming. The history of use of the bam for <br />horses and the apparent intent by past and current owners to continue that use, plus the City's <br />lack of action to restrict or eliminate the use when the subdivision occurred, make it difficult <br />to require now that the use be ceased. <br />3. I find no compelling evidence that suggests the site is causing a pollution problem for <br />the wetland. The enclosure appears to be kept in such a manner that manure does not <br />accumu>ate to any extent. While stormwater from the site w'ould generally run toward the <br />wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland (i.e. the <br />wetland perimeter vegetation is not significanUy different from that of any other w'etland or <br />frorn other locations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether <br />nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland near the enclosure are higher than 'normal'. <br />Absent any definite evidence of a pollution problem, and given the e.xpert opinion of a <br />Uvestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is <br />e.xtremely minor*, I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is <br />no evidence of an odor problem (and no complaint of one). There is no evidence that the site <br />is harboring rodents, flies or insects (and no complaint that it is). <br />To summarize, mj conclusion is that the use of the property ’ for housing of two horses based on all <br />available information appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the bam and <br />enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required <br />specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. <br />Mj conclusion in this matter, therefore, is that the two horses and e.xisting facilitieswill be allowed <br />to remain on the property. I will recommend to the propert>- owners that they establish measures to