Laserfiche WebLink
John Dalbec <br /> July 25, 1997 <br /> Page 4 <br /> The property owners do not let manure accumulate to a point where it would harbor <br /> rodents, flies or insects. Staff has visited the site and has observed that such noxious <br /> conditions do not exist. <br /> - During my inspections of the site on June 11 and July 2, 1997 I observed no excessive or <br /> malodorous aromas. <br /> There was no accumulation of manure and water on the site that would indicate a <br /> chronic mucky situation that could lead to a continuous odor or runoff problem. <br /> - During the July 2 inspection, which was the morning after a heavy rain, I found no <br /> indications that manure had been transported off the site to the wetland by runoff. <br /> While there was not a dense vegetative ground cover within the enclosure during both my <br /> inspections,about half of the enclosure does have some vegetative cover, and there was no <br /> indication on July 2 that the area enclosed was eroding over the driveway and into the <br /> wetland. <br /> I did observe that the driveway gravel had washed down hill from the east and was <br /> a potential source of sedimentation to the wetland,which should be resolved by the property <br /> owners who share that driveway. <br /> Smith/Murphy have consulted with an expert from the University of Minnesota, who <br /> indicates in the attached letter that in his opinion, "the impact to the wetland from <br /> runoff through this lot is extremely minor". He also indicated that with only two <br /> horses, this site does not qualify as a feedlot, and with only two horses the amount <br /> of manure to be dealt with is minimal. <br /> This site does not strike me as an eyesore, and while I could see no visible indications of <br /> runoff leading to the wetland, such runoff could possibly occur. Berming around the north <br /> and west fence lines might help control runoff to some extent,although I have no compelling <br /> information that leads me to conclude that it is necessary. <br /> Conclusions <br /> 1. The City would have a difficult time simply requiring that one or both horses be removed <br /> from the site due merely to not meeting the total acreage requirement(which is calculated <br /> on the basis of pasture acreage requirements)for the following reasons: <br /> a. Horses have apparently been kept at the site on a regular basis since prior to <br /> the codes which established minimum acreage requirements; <br /> b. There has been no apparent intent bythe current or past owners to abandon <br /> PP <br /> • <br />