Laserfiche WebLink
John Dalbec <br /> July 25, 1997 <br /> Page 5 <br /> use of the site for horses; <br /> c. When the City allowed the horse barn to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of <br /> subdivision of the property in 1980, the City did not require the barn be <br /> removed. <br /> d. 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 /> e. 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 location and locational relationships of the barn were established prior to adoption of the <br /> codes which made the barn location non-conforming. The history of use of the barn 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 ndw that the use be ceased. <br /> 3. I find no c mpelling 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 /> accumulate o any extent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the <br /> wetland them is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland(i.e. the <br /> wetland perimeter vegetation is not significantly different from that of any other wetland or <br /> from other 1 cations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether <br /> nutrient levOls 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 expert opinion of a <br /> Livestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is <br /> 'extremely or',I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is <br /> no evidence .fan 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,my •onclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all <br /> available informati s n appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the barn and <br /> enclosure in relatio to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required <br /> specific setbacks, . • that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. <br /> My conclusion in s matter,therefore,is that the two horses and existing facilitieswill be allowed <br /> to remain on the pro•erty. I will recommend to the property owners that they establish measures to <br />