05-11-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 (U14) John Dalbec Request for Council Determination Regarding the Keeping of Horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North - Continued Jabbour explained how the ordinances work. Prior to ordinances being adopted, property owners could do whatever activities they wanted legally. When they continue to do these activities after they are no longer allowed by ordinance, it is considered legally non-conforming. If the activity began after the ordinance was adopted, then it is illegally non-conforming. When an activity is legally non-conforming, it is referred to as "grandfathered in". Gaffron agreed that the keeping of horses on this property is legally non-conforming. Dalbec asked for clarification of legally, non-conforming. Jabbour explained that when horses were on this property many years ago, it was legal to have horses there. Gaffron referred to the staff review represented in a 6 page letter to Dalbec. Staff concluded that there has been a continuous existence of horses on the property, and therefore the use should be allowed to continue. No pollution problem exists as indicated in the report from Jeremy Geske of the University of Minnesota. After two site inspections, Gaffron also concluded that no environmental problems were created as a result of the horses. The fact that the property is less than 4 acres is not a factor in the decision to allow the horses to remain because they have been there continuously. Nothing in the information in the City's files suggest that there was any intent on the City or the property owner's part to not have horses. The horse bam and corral were allowed to remain when there was no house on the property. Horses have been on the property since at least the mid-1950's. Jabbour asked how many hours staff has spent on this issue. Gaffron responded that he had spent at least 25 hours, and probably another 10 or 15 hours with other staff members and the City Attorney. No members of the Council or Planning Commission have been involved in researching the issues. Jabbour informed Dalbec that the City has concluded that the horses are a legally, non-conforming use of the property. Many taxpayer dollars have been spent to reach this conclusion. There has been no interference from the Council or Planning Commission. If there is any bias, it is toward Dalbec since so much time has been spent to research the issue. Flint questioned the ownership of the property. Gaffron confirmed that Murphy/Smith own Lots 10 and 13, and Dalbec owns Lot 12. Flint noted a supportive letter from Mrs. Bordson, a neighbor to the north. He also asked what would happen if one of the lots were sold off Gaffron responded that Lot 10 is 3.7 acres and Lot 13 is 1.5 acres.