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 a11ow 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-confornung. The history of use of the barn for <br /> horses and the appazent 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 now that the use be ceased. <br /> 3. I find no compelling 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 to any extent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the <br /> wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland(i.e. the <br /> wetland perimeter vegetation is not significanfly different from that of any other wetland or <br /> from other locations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether <br /> nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland neaz 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 minor',I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is <br /> no evidence of an 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 conclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all <br /> available information appeazs to be a legal non-conforming use,that the location of the barn and <br /> enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required <br /> specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. <br /> My conclusion in this matter,therefore,is that the two horses and e�sting facilitieswill be allowed <br /> to remain on the property. I will recommend to the property owners that they establish measures to <br />