Laserfiche WebLink
John Dalbec <br /> July 25, 1997 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Two horses are kept stabled on the property. <br /> The lot size is approximately 3.7 acres of which 0.1 acre is wetland. <br /> The fenced enclosure on the property in which horses are kept is approximately 0.4 <br /> acre in area, including the 2200 s.f. barn. <br /> Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) as consistently interpreted by staff would require 1 <br /> acre for the residence plus 2 acres of pasture for the first horse, or 3 acres total. The <br /> second horse would require an additional acre of pasture, for a total of 4 acres. <br /> When they purchased the property in 1988, Smith/Murphy were under the impression <br /> that the property contained the required acreage for two horses. They have had two <br /> horses at the site continuously since 1988. City records indicate two or more horses <br /> were at the site prior to 1988, and in 1987 the City represented to the previous owner <br /> that the property contained enough acreage to house two horses. The City never attempted <br /> to enforce the pasture acreage requirements on this property in the past, and never <br /> indicated to the owner that the lack of pasture was a problem. <br /> Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) gives the Council the discretion to reduce the required <br /> pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy <br /> horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. A legal non-conforming use does not <br /> require specific Council action regarding the pasture requirement. <br /> City files and airphotos indicate the barn had been used historically for housing horses since <br /> the mid-1950's or earlier. City records do not provide any documentation whether the use <br /> of the site for keeping horses was ever suspended for any length of time. There is no <br /> evidence that this or any previous owner of the property ever had an intent to abandon the <br /> use of the property for housing horses. <br /> The City did not require that the horse barn be removed at the time the property was <br /> subdivided, suggesting that the City expected that the barn would continue to be used <br /> for some accessory purpose when a new principal structure was built on the property. <br /> The City at the time of subdivision made no representations about the possible future <br /> uses of the barn. <br /> All of the above information suggests that it would be difficult for the City to refute the <br /> argument that the use of the property for housing at least two horses has been continuous <br /> since the adoption of the codes requiring a minimum lot area and minimum area of pasture, <br />