Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: neighbors horses 0 CITY of ORONO 14 44-4,' lrrMunicipal Offices ta �.y^;Atr+ Street Address: Mailing Address: $ Hp 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 25, 1997 John Dalbec 1565 Orono Oaks Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Dalbec: In May 1997 staff received your complaint that there are too many horses on the property at 30 Orono Orchard Road North owned by your neighbors, James Murphy and Sandra Smith. You indicated a concern that because of a lack of pasture area this use is resulting in destruction of vegetation, topsoil erosion and waste discharging to the nearby wetland. I have inspected the site on two occasions and I have discussed this issue with the property owners. They have consulted experts to assist in determining whether there is a potential pollution hazard. They believe that the current number of horses and barn location must be considered as a legal non-conforming use. I have spent considerable time researching City records to determine whether there is a basis for their contention. Your specific concerns as expressed in your letter of June 11 are: 1. Lot size does not meet code for maintaining two horses; 2. Pasture size does not meet code for two horses; 3. 'Sewage' drained directly to wetland; 4. Stable does not meet 75' to lot lines; 5. Stable does not meet 150' to adjacent residences. List of Attachments A - History of Property B - History of Pertinent Codes C - Plat& Topography Maps D - Letter from Jeremy Geske, U of M 6/23/97 Analysis of Issues Regarding concerns #1 and#2: Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 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, John Dalbec July 25, 1997 Page 3 and should be 'grandfathered', i.e. considered as a legal non-conforming use. Staff is un are of any past formal requests in the City for pasture acreage reduction, hence there ppears to be no precedent for reference. Regarding concern§#4 and#5: The barn on Lot 10 is located approximately 20 feet from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 feet from the west property line abutting Lot 13. This relationship has existed for more than 40 years. The barn i§ more than 200 feet from the north line of Lot 10 and 500 feet from the east line of tot 10. Smith/M y are owners of Lot 13. The barn is approximately 60 feet from the house on Lot 13, and approximately 270 feet from tht next nearest residence, which is south of the Luce Line. The barn was established in its current location many years prior to the 1968 and subsequent zoning code standards which made its location non-conforming. The standards for the 75' lot line setback and 150' "nearest adjacent residence" setback were established to provide a buffer between horse barns and neighboring residential properties. Except for Lot 13 which Smith/Murphy own, the existing barn location meets the intent of such buffering, in staffs opinion. On the other hand, if Lot 13 is sold to another party,the buffering might not be adequate. The Luce Line Trail is not only a pedestrian and bike trail but is also a horse trail by design,hence the adjacency to a horse barn should not be incompatible. Regarding concern 3: The fenced horse enclosure is approximately 40-50 feet from the apparent boundary of the 3-acre Type 2/3 wetland located within Lots 10-11-12-13. A gravel driveway is located between the enclosure and the wetland. The City h a 26' wetland setback requirement in effect for structures and other activity occurring n ar wetlands. The enclosure appears to meet this setback. John Dalbec July 25, 1997 Page 4 The property owners do not let manure accumulate to a point where it would harbor rodents, flies or insects. Staff has visited the site and has observed that such noxious conditions do not exist. - During my inspections of the site on June 11 and July 2, 1997 I observed no excessive or malodorous aromas. There was no accumulation of manure and water on the site that would indicate a chronic mucky situation that could lead to a continuous odor or runoff problem. - During the July 2 inspection, which was the morning after a heavy rain, I found no indications that manure had been transported off the site to the wetland by runoff. While there was not a dense vegetative ground cover within the enclosure during both my inspections,about half of the enclosure does have some vegetative cover, and there was no indication on July 2 that the area enclosed was eroding over the driveway and into the wetland. I did observe that the driveway gravel had washed down hill from the east and was a potential source of sedimentation to the wetland,which should be resolved by the property owners who share that driveway. Smith/Murphy have consulted with an expert from the University of Minnesota, who indicates in the attached letter that in his opinion, "the impact to the wetland from runoff through this lot is extremely minor". He also indicated that with only two horses, this site does not qualify as a feedlot, and with only two horses the amount of manure to be dealt with is minimal. This site does not strike me as an eyesore, and while I could see no visible indications of runoff leading to the wetland, such runoff could possibly occur. Berming around the north and west fence lines might help control runoff to some extent,although I have no compelling information that leads me to conclude that it is necessary. Conclusions 1. The City would have a difficult time simply requiring that one or both horses be removed from the site due merely to not meeting the total acreage requirement(which is calculated on the basis of pasture acreage requirements)for the following reasons: a. Horses have apparently been kept at the site on a regular basis since prior to the codes which established minimum acreage requirements; b. There has been no apparent intent bythe current or past owners to abandon PP • John Dalbec July 25, 1997 Page 5 use of the site for horses; c. When the City allowed the horse barn to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of subdivision of the property in 1980, the City did not require the barn be removed. d. In 1987,the City represented to the prior owner that two horses could be kept on the property. While that conclusion may have relied on incorrect information regarding lot size,the current owners relied on this representation and have had two horses on the site without incident or complaint until the current complaint surfaced. e. The City Council at its discretion can allow the pasture requirement, and hence the overall acreage requirement,to be reduced if it finds that the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. In effect,the City has tacitly granted such reduction by its past inaction. 2. The location and locational relationships of the barn were established prior to adoption of the codes which made the barn location non-conforming. The history of use of the barn for horses and the apparent intent by past and current owners to continue that use,plus the City's lack of action to restrict or eliminate the use when the subdivision occurred,make it difficult to require ndw that the use be ceased. 3. I find no c mpelling evidence that suggests the site is causing a pollution problem for the wetland The enclosure appears to be kept in such a manner that manure does not accumulate o any extent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the wetland them is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland(i.e. the wetland perimeter vegetation is not significantly different from that of any other wetland or from other 1 cations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether nutrient levOls at the edge of the wetland near the enclosure are higher than'normal'. Absent any definite evidence of a pollution problem, and given the expert opinion of a Livestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is 'extremely or',I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is no evidence .fan odor problem(and no complaint of one).There is no evidence that the site is harboring rodents, flies or insects(and no complaint that it is). To summarize,my •onclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all available informati s n appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the barn and enclosure in relatio to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required specific setbacks, . • that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. My conclusion in s matter,therefore,is that the two horses and existing facilitieswill be allowed to remain on the pro•erty. I will recommend to the property owners that they establish measures to John Dalbec July 25, 1997 Page 6 • eliminate erosion of the gravel driveway toward the wetland. Thank you for your concern as well as your patience in allowing the City adequate time to investigate the issues of this matter. Per your discussion with City Administrator Ron Moorse, if you disagree with the City staffs conclusions, you should detail those concerns in a letter to the Council for their consideration as an appeal of an administrative decision. Sincerely, AL—e Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning&Zoning Administrator cc: James Murphy& Sandra Smith Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Jabbour and City Council History of Prope 1. The existin horse barn has been at its current location and size since at least the mid- 1950's or e Her. 2. The horse barn in the mid-1950's was accessory to the residence now owned by Mr. • Struyk currently known as 40 Orono Orchard Road North. The property contained approximately 40 acres at that time, including the residence and the barn. The small house now known as 20 Orono Orchard Road N.(the"corner lot")was already on a separate parcel as of the mid-1950's,although airphotos indicate that driveways interconnected the apparent use of the two properties. The low area north of the barn(now the middle of the wetland in Lots 12 & 13) contained an oval riding ring. 3. The prope , including the corner lot, was subdivide in 1978 to create new unsewered building sits of two-plus acres each. In July 1978 the City approved two optional lot configuratio : - a 124ot plat with the barn and the corner house platted together as a single lot; or - a 13 of plat with the corner lot separate from the barn,but the corner lot expanded to co tain at least 2 dry-buildable acres The second option was ultimately chosen, and the City allowed dry-buildable credit for the wet and area that exists today but which was dry in 1978. As a result, the corner lot p atted as Lot 13 contains 2-plus acres of which only half is considered dry- buildable by today's standatrds and prevailing condition. And, Lot 10 with the horse barn contains approximately 3.7 acres of which approximately 0.1 acre is wetland. 4. In approvin the subdivision as it was ultimately configured, the City did not address the accesso structure status of the barn,and did not require that it be removed, although it became an ccessory structure without a principal structure. The City also placed no conditions oil the future use of the property,even though it obviously contained a horse barn and fenced area historically use to keep horses. 5. A building ermit was issued in November 1982 to Steve Neslund for a new home to be const cted on Lot 12 which was constructed during 1983 and Certificate of Occupancy i sued in January 1984. Curiously, the Certificate of Survey used to obtain the building permit did not show the then-existing horse barn, although that survey purpc}rts to show"the location of all buildings, if any,thereon...". 6. In July 198 the City received a complaint about manure storage at the site. The inspector di not find manure being stored but did find 3 horses. The inspector somehow concluded that the site had 4.2 acres of land and ordered the third horse to be removed,which was done without question since the third horse was apparently being housed only temporarily for a friend of the owner. • 7. In October 1988 Neslund requested information about how many horses could be housed on the property. Mabusth sent him the code but apparently did not define a number of horses,possibly because she did not have acreage figures for the property. 8. In December 1988 Smith & Murphy moved onto the property. Within a short time they started using the site for housing of horses. The City has no record of complaint regarding those horses until Dalbec's May 1997 complaint. g History of Pertine t Codes 1. The 1968 oning Code included "Animals" as an accessory use in the R-1C District in which su ject property was located. The standards for such use were as follows: "34.037.Animals.The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises,provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line provided that a minimum of two acres of open pasture be available for a single horse,and that one additional acre be available for each additional horse. Where the horses are kept stabled without requirement for pasture for feed purposes,this minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall be exclusive of minimum lot requirements and shall not include low lying lands." The 1968 Code also defined Stables or Barns -Private in 34.040 as follows: "Stables or Barns-Private. A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing horses,mules,donkeys,or ponies belonging to the occupant of the property,and kept for noncommercial purposes. (Should not be located less than 150 feet from a dwelling on adjoining property)." 2. In 1970 Section 34.037 was amended by adding the following language: "No person keeping such animals shall permit or allow any of the following conditions to exist: a. The land upon which the horses are kept is unsightly or is a harbor for rodents,flies and insects. b. The winter accumulation of manure is not removed from the premises prior to May 15 of each year. c. Other accumulation of manure is not removed so as to prevent an unreasonable amount of objectionable aroma. d. A failure to make a reasonable effort to keep the horses under control and within proper fencing. e. The animals have been treated cruelly or inhumanely. f. A public nuisance exists on that property. Also in 197C the definition of Stables or Barns-Private was revised as follows: "30.040 Stables er and Barns-Private. A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing horses,mules, donkeys or ponies belonging to the occupant of the property. (Should not be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line)." 3. In 1973 the Council adopted Chapter 110, "Animal Regulations" (See attached Ordinance #157)which dealt with: Animals at large, including impoundment, disposition, and fees. Declared that "No person shall keep any animal in a manner creating a public or private nuisance." Included items a. thru f. as adopted by the 1970 revision of 34.037. Defined regulations for the riding of horses. Authorized the establishment of a 3-person Livestock Commission to "assist the Village Clerk in inspection of the premises of those seeking a horse permit,to receive complaints from those aggrieved by animal owners or keepers,to investigate complaints,to advise animal owners against whom complaints have been lodged, and to advise the Village Council as to appropriate action." Again revised 34.037 as follows: "34.037.Animals.The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises,provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line, providedt-s A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse, and-that one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. Where When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, thitthe minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall be exclusive of minimum lot requirements and shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing.Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of Chapter 110." 4. In the 1975 code revision, Section 34.037 was renumbered as 34.031 and revised as follows: "34.037.Animals.The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises,provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line.A minimum of one acre in aggregate.exclusive of one acre for the principal building.must be available for each animal unit.except as hereinafter set forth.A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse,and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes,the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall atd-shell not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing.Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of Chapter 110." 5. Changes were made to the numbering when the Zoning Code was recodified in 1984. Section 34.031 became Section 10.20 subd. 3(M). Section 30.040 became Section 10.02, Def. 65. Also, sections of Chapter 110 were either relocated to other sections of the code or dropped. The provisions for a Livestock Commission were dropped. 6. In 1986, ef. 65 was revised as follows: "65.Stables and Barns-Private. A building or structure used or intended to be used for Itetteitke hersesr mulesrdeftkeys-er-pertiesthe keeping of hoofed animals belonging to the occupant of the property.and kept for non-commercial purposes. Also in 1986, 10.20 Subd. 3(M)was revised as follows: "M. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises, minimum of one acre in aggregate,exclusive of one acre for the principal building,must be available for each animal unit,except as hereinafter set forth.A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse,and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes,the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing.Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code." Further,in =986 a new section, 10.20 Subd. 3(N)was added to create a new conditional use as follows: "N.Stables and Barns-Private. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for noncommercial purposes provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in Paragraph M of this subsection. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line." Note that ection 10.28, Subd. 4(A) was also revised so that "M. Animals" and "N. Stables and Barns-Private" are accessory uses in the RR-1B zone. The reason 'or this exhaustive review of Code revisions is to assist in establishing at what point certain items or activities may have become non-conforming. _-1fZ—_g__Zo -- - _- v1.•o226�- 11 .61 C`_i • --' -_ -- (8) V , ct 1(1°11' ,tirtts 47f 6) N OUTL01 A t - .• 5 .�'2k 9 (1‘) N.P..*7e- 4 2 0 ,,,..o V .1%.„, '3' l (7) htiyp r til * • \) 2!,63'1'�2. •ti* : .,0 OS • 25j•ss .' ' SO ' 9.9 o i .1: .,..,. iivA 4 A ,r,"k 35 ,6,,. \.-\ V 0, . (z7 v e s) ?J.7 4 DD DD i t \`1 08 1 1 1� Z p.1.7 11 1 R•2111f 732 � • 7 `� q\ 'T. ► •10 . 1• .•'• • t 270.• W. , '. t9.66 183.3- anti. �7 0-0, �, .,., R• 6 183_3 a�•�1 Nr'! � ,,��f,,� -1•0 . ,`.0, `% ,' `�,, 111744.31.t. as 3 I" 1r 01). • r tz i 19 111.33 61. (lad °.,d Is•i 7' . -`-• it ® 1 e Q .. (13) • •.1 2 \M1 17.115 - .��., 17 i (13) • \CAV . T r , ® 1 - Pit doh, • 0o GD '�j g 12 • 4e4,„ IO iv,0 Iii 13 71. 1� 37.. �• (9) I c:/ Z) I. ', \ .' 1� ' ' - f� , O 6� •.,) v� y �1'E , 4� 0�0 fir, 9 : 3 S 36 A'r \t i (5) ;.. i . .. -37.16 . • NIP ,, ( .1 �sI 3 01 61 5 40 401° ,` �� 110 0 P�. ' (2) ESQ $ n 7s . �,s ` \y\. _ • L� ` �s .1 a, ^1,\co (1) . � ,"•29.,\1 58 . (3) ! ISO �� • . 'bb y I D - $ J ~� AOP� ,, (8) • 5D ''t..i •.,e 1127.•::64. 2 \ : P•T6T.9T J 1 A~1S-s' \,, 1• \�\\ '�. •► ''. 80 (4) \ •0.4 ' 611 ;,�(23)�► • Vit. (3) • L. \L1 1• ' �'°b' •' PT 0v•PT CP °� s� 1 ��.�,LOT 75•,an •1 lOT 61 j�� . .72.302 Kt . ' ORCRAID'4 .'1• \ (26) 1 ; (32) ' :..i5 (31) . ,, • O ' YIf�!,.,o� '.° .`°*�73 'i ( 16),! , co�22) �aIt, a?6-• ''a.Q,�O ,, \gyp 1�^� on o . 'o. a • if /p • 0 "� .�"�/ �(17)6s / ZOO O ' � ,y .� ...j. ",,,....„ ------ I x © 984.8 X x 4 943.2 , t p A l /a 0i o Il !Ns4000/A . ak I `A } ....- f /K -#/°° - /`��� ir 972.2 X 943.1 ak ( i � `� Ne Illk\Ni \ i , � � 0 . ( 4/ 9 Ot 10 1 . al& ) 4. i ' tkilleViet°1411) Al , 2 „(( , 4: 47.6 ._________)w11111#44 �� \,__ ..4 .106-41°°1-47viCad ilk •83.6 �/f ‘.W 2 ' ijf. %W\ 3 � - �� ca-- ���/ 44,_e1`ii411 fik '•&``. )1jij? : 1111. 40i .0 griaNAI925 � ' �X s 993.6- (_ f \� 9,90 - - o � 988.3 •$ =- I'y> \ *Piop • MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE b - 1111111 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY 4100 220th Street West • Farmington MN 55024-9539 (612)891-7700 TDD: (612)891-7749 FAX: (612)463-8002 E-mail:dakota@mes.umn.edu June 23, 1997 TO: Jim Murphy and Sandra Smith FR: Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems RE: My observations from the June 19 farm visit CC: Tom Wegner The message I received was that there was some concern about runoff from a horse lot entering a wetland. Jim and Sandra wanted an expert opinion on pollution potential, and if a problem did exist, advice on how to prevent it. We set up a farm visit, so I could see the situation first hand. My initial reaction was A) there are only two horses and B) the lot was not devoid of vegetation. It is my understanding then that this farm would not be considered a feedlot and a permit would not be required. In addition, the amount of manure from two horses is relatively minimal. There is a hill above the East side of the lot. However, there is thick vegetation on the hill and Jim blades a ridge of dirt around the fence; both of which should reduce the amount of runoff crossing the lot. For the most part, it appears that only rain (or snow) falling directly on the lot would be a concern. The lot itself is very small and it appears that only about 2/3 of it drains towards the wetland. Between the lot and the wetland is a narrow strip of grass and a gravel road. Considering the small size of the operation and the way it is managed, my opinion is that the impact on the wetland from runoff through this lot is extremely minor. In addition, the horses appeared to be in very good condition, and well taken care of. Jim and Sandra gave me the impression that they willing to follow any steps necessary to ensure they are not polluting and that their horses are managed properly. Their veterinarian could probably attest to this. If you would like more opinions, I would recommend inviting a representative from the Soil and Water Conservation District and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to inspect the sight. I am also sending Jim and Sandra some information on composting horse manure. • UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,AND MINNESOTA COUNTIES COOPERATING