Re: neighbors horses - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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