The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRe: horse pasture �O� O �,� _ O �� CITY of ORONO . � �,� , � ti �� :�' Municipal Offices � a' a'�� h, �� .��,�'',�G SVeet Address: Mailing Address: � �'�� 'qJ��xp'4�' 2150 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 May 15, 1997 Sandy Smith 30 Orono Orchard Rd.N. Wayzata,MN 55391 • RE: Horse pasture at your residence (Section 10.20 M.) Dear Ms. Smith: We have received a complaint regarding the horses on your property. The complainant stated that the number of horses seems to be too great for the pasture area causing the destruction of vegetation in the pasture resulting in erosion of topsoil and waste towazds the wetland area to the North. After reviewing the Orono Municipal Code and your site,we have determined that some problems do exist with your current horse pasture. The RR-1B zoning district allows one horse for a property with 3 acres of dry land and one � additional horse is allowed per additional acre of dry land on a parcel. Our calculations indicate that you have approximately 3.6 acres of land total (3.4 acres dry),which is adequate azea for only one horse. The total acreage quoted does not include the 2.03 acres of 20 Orono Orchard Rd.N. as it is � a separate parcel. Approximately.8 acres of dry land is available on 20 Orono Orchard Rd.N.which would give you enough acreage for two horses only if the two properties were combined. ' The Orono Municipal Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of open pasture for one horse with one additional acre of pasture needed for each additional horse. The current pasture area is approximately .4 acres,which is well below the 3 acres re�quired for two horses and expansion of the pasture is limited by the driveway,a property line,steep slopes and the residences. The City Council can approve pasture areas less than 3 acres,but the horses must be stabled and the pasture area is not needed for feed purposes. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Now that a complaint has been received regazding the horses on your property,we must address this issue in a timely manner. Please let me know how you wish to address this issue by May 30, 1997. Call me at the City offices by if you have any questions. Sincerely, ' ��C/!�� Stephen Weckman Field Inspector cc: Lyle Oman, Building Official 3 0 O ran,o-O rc,�.a.v�d�2 aa.d� Wa y�a�"a�, M N 5 5 3 91 May 26, 1997 ��C�� M AY 3 0199J' Mr. Steve Weckman �,�; ; ��r- ORO�'O Field Inspector City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Steve, This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1997, regarding: "Horse pasture at your residence". As I mentioned to you on the telephone last week, we are gathering information and studying the issue that you have described. We have not completed this process and plan to respond to your letter by June 15. Please respond in writing that this date is acceptable. Thank you. Cordially, % , i �� ''*,,_ < . �� . �� r,�-�J2��-��'�`---�' �.�,�1�.�31.t� � S'andra Smith :James Murphy d � o� o ,, , o , ��-� CITY of ORONO �, : �-`°_ titi M�� ot�� y ":� Street Address: Mailina Addreu: ��'�'' p'¢'�G 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 E$TrI Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 May 30, 1997 Sandy Smith James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Rd. N. Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Horse pasture at your residence(Section 10.20 M.) Dear Ms. Smith and Mr. Murphy: We received your letter requesting additional time(until June 15, 1997)to decide what you will do regarding your horse pasture. Your request is accepted. Please call me at the City offices by if you • have any further questions. . _ Sincerely, ��% � �� S�ephen Weckman Field Inspectar cc: Lyle Oman, Building Official Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 MINNESOTAEXTENSIONSERVICE � � • ' ' UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUIv'TY 4100 220th Street West Farmington MN 55024-9539 (612)891-7700 TDD: (612)891-7749 FAX: (612)463-8002 E-mail: dakotaC�3mes.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. 7im 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]ot. However, there is tl�ick vegetation on the hill and Jim blades a ri8ge 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 runof�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�ave me the impression that they willing to follow any steps necessary to ensure they are not polluting and that their horses are mana�ed 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 � �,: �: � - x �` / � - � � I�� , � � � , a � � � � ;. .� , ��►'�� , �� "� � . , /��7�� ; �,� �.. � ,� � , � . 1 . 1 . ,.- � -..�r �� , ; 1� _ .. � � �� , , .,..: �' � ,,� ` , � �� -- . � -� _ \ -_ .� �"'.�-�� . � --�� ; , ,_. ` ��,, �� ! �,:-� � ':� !. �.� �` . . ��- �•-�` *' ' , �� _ -� v�� ,,� .- . �� ,-- ►�� • . -- -� t� ...i . `` � ._ . , �,� ��'' ±_-�--�/---" '� �-��-�" .--�' � --.''.•� - -:.,�-- - `'\��1� -' �s -.J�.�� //-. - ��. - �,��-=`��/ ' ,-'��'� �� / C � - �.- . ,_- � � ��; �� .�� ;,��y�%�� , � - � +-- � .. � � `�. i�� ,�,� •�-�..-�-�i� �' �, {�- ,�,,..�� - . 1 � .- � � ` .� .. �� / \�` � , . � � � �. � N� •. • 1 ♦ � � �, � ` , �� * � . �. ,,� � � �._ , 1� � - � � � � ,� � . . , r � � ,� � � � \\� --- ;�i► . �� -- - � . , �. � .� _ �. : � = - �� , � . � � L � � O� O v. O �� CITY of ORONO ,� c�.��. . �, r�,� �,�ti�1�,{,�, G�l�r MunicipalOt�ices � }, �`��`�'� Street Addross: Mailin Address: '�.9 l`��i1� .¢,'�Y � $�,+gHO 2150 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystai Bay, MN 55323-0066 Ju1y 25, 1997 John Dalbec 1565 Orono Oaks Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Dalbec: In May 1997 staff received your complaint that there aze 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 azea this use is resulting in destruction of vegetation,topsoil erosion and waste dischazging 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 reseazching 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 t ! 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 azea,including the 2200 s.f.barn. - Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(1Vn 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(1Vn 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 regazding 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 tnne. 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. - Tfie City did not require that the horse barn be removed at the tirr�e 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 tlie 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 azea of pasture, , John Dalbec July 25, 1997 Page 3 and should be'grandfathered', i.e. considered.as a legal non-conforming use. - Staff is unawaze of any past formal requests in the City for pasture acreage reduction, hence there appears to be no precedent for reference. Regarding concerns#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 is more than 200 feet from the north line of Lot 10 and 500 feet from the east line of Lot 10. - Smith/Murphy aze owners of Lot 13. - The barn is approximately 60 feet from the house on Lot 13, and approximately 270 feet from the next neazest 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' lat 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 staff s 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: - T'he 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 has a 26' wetland setback requirement in effect for structures and other activity occurring near wetlands. The enclosure appears to meet this setback. t John Dalbec � July 25, 1997 Page 4 - The property owners do not let manure accumulate to a point where it would hazbor rodents, flies or insects. Sta,ff 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 azomas. - 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 moming 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 shaze 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 tlus 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. Bernung 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 regulaz basis since prior to the codes which established minimum acreage requirements; b. There has been no apparent intent by the current or past owners to abandon 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 a11ow 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-confornung. The history of use of the barn for horses and the appazent 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 now that the use be ceased. 3. I find no compelling 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 to any extent. While stormwater from the site would generally run toward the wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland(i.e. the wetland perimeter vegetation is not significanfly different from that of any other wetland or from other locations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland neaz 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 minor',I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is no evidence of an 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 conclusion is that the use of the property for housing of two horses based on all available information appeazs to be a legal non-conforming use,that the location of the barn and enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. My conclusion in this matter,therefore,is that the two horses and e�sting facilitieswill be allowed to remain on the property. 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 staff s conclusions, you should detail those concerns in a letter to the Council for their consideration as an appeal of an administrative decision. Sincerely, .� � . � Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning&Zoning Administrator cc: James Murphy& Sandra Smith Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Jabbour and City Council � History of Property 1. The existing horse barn has been at its current location and size since at least the mid- 1950's or eazlier. 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"comer lot")was already on a sepazate parcel as of the mid-1950's,although aiiphotos indicate that driveways interconnected the appazent use of the two properties. The low azea north of the barn(now the middle of the wetland in Lots 12 & 13)contained an oval riding ring. 3. The property, including the corner lot, was subdivide in 1978 to create new unsewered building sites of two-plus acres each. In July 1978 the City approved two optional lot configurations: - a 12-lot plat with the barn and the comer house platted together as a single lot; or - a 13-lot plat with the corner lot separate from the barn,but the corner lot expanded to contain at least 2 dry-buildable acres The second option was ultimately chosen, and the City allowed dry-buildable credit for the wetland azea that exists today but which was dry in 1978. As a result, the corner lot platted 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 approving the subdivision as it was ulrimately configured, the City did not address the accessory structure status of the barn,and did not require that it be removed, although it became an accessory structure without a principal structure. The City also placed no conditions on 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 permit was issued in November 1982 to Steve Neslund for a new home to be constructed on Lot 12 which was constructed during 1983 and Certificate of Occupancy issued in January 1984. Curiously, the Certificate of Survey used to obtain the building pernut did not show the then-existing horse barn, although that survey purports to show"the location of all buildings, if any,thereon...". 6. In July 1987 the City received a complaint about manure storage at the site. The inspector did 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 regazding those horses until Dalbec's May 1997 complaint. , � History of Pertinent Codes 1. The 1968 Zoning Code included "Animals" as an accessory use in the R-1C District in which subject 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 minunum 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 1970 the definition of Stables or Barns-Private was revised as follows: "30.040 Stables er�nd 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 1 t line ." 3. In 1973 the Council adopted Chapter 110, "Animal Regulations" (See attached Ordinance #157)which dealt with: - Animals at lazge, including impoundment,disposition, and fees. - Declazed 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 esta.blishment of a 3-person Livestock Commission to "assist che 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, prev�ided-t�a�e�minimum of two acres of open pasture g�t be available for a single horse, and-t�one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. i�kere When the horses are kept stabled ' and do not require pasture for feed purposes, �t�e minunum 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��^��a��P for Rasture or�a inz' g An�person keepine such animals must comnlv with the�rovisions of Cha te�r 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.� minimum of one acre in s¢�e¢ate exclusive of one acre for th�principal building,must �P�<��9��^f^*each animal unit excep�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 pastw'e 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 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(Nn. 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, Def. 65 was revised as follows: "65.Stables and Barns-Private. A building or structure used or intended to be used for � , , ' the keepin¢of hoofed n;malc belonging to the occupant of the property,and kegt for non-commercial nwposes. „ Also in 1986, 10.20 Subd. 3(Nn 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, f�wlamirane�a�oh > >- » + .�, i t �en c t , a vv .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 aze 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 1986 a new section, 10.20 Subd. 3(1�was added to create a new conditional use as follows: _'N.Stables and Barns-Private The uce nf�accessorv building for kee '�u g animals for noncommercial n�,m�cpc nr�vided it is for the non commercial use of the nronertv owner 9r resident and meets the available rea standardc utl' ed'n paragr�nh M of this subsection. Further no such structure c all be located lecc than 150 feet from the ne rest adj ent iesidence and no closer than 75 fePt fT�f.,rhP••.��o�r i..r u„o�� Note that Section 10.28, Subd. 4(A) was also revised so that "M. Animals" and "N. Stables and Barns -Private" aze accessory uses in the RR-1B zone. The reason for this exhaustive review of Code revisions is to assist in establishing at what point certain items or activities may have become non-conforniing. x 1 I`�6 Jv 173.6f � � e (8) ' �?�� ' � (6) ' ' � ouno� � �in �� °' s ; .'' �`� o • :' ~ a - w ��6� ��+3j � �� " : � - y�e�' Ob � • ti,� a+ l = /7�' ` 2��• � j�� l�t. �^.`• �.�o s j6J � ,3y o � � a q o .63 .�, . ::� c ss o `� ;� ..� �* `� �� a- � ti ��2 . .,,�,.� � � 3�0 c�,�~ �i s) �.i�is � ° (0�� '� � � i � (i61 �� j � ��j� Z`'l� Pl�� ,� , ab � �� .�` R•t�i�� ' �' •.s j �+' T �� 'A • . t]G. �+. 19.b6 63 3��:�A a�� ,�� 1'1� �.�� t3 6 . 4�3��.� ��" tT' 3 ^'� �{1'� 70 p.�►�' � .�'D � 12�61•y' ��a�) �� o� `' �.��• �.� • � 3 3 5 � , .,� . � O ° QF. � I (i3) ..r � � lt� 1S '!�r 17 � '?S ��3� �rf:t•'. � (,�j � ! � 1J � � d0� �� '� ' ` b5 (7) ,, � 9 � APPr�,�g .i�'�' ( ,i' � �y 8� (5) ��, : L./�� ° 8) g 0 , � 0 0� � � , 0� 1`6 � � O � ,� � y,�.�' �; I , . �o �'�tr �� ( �0) � `' �, � � ��- � O i3 � ,,�1 (9) �9�� • ` � � � ►� •.. � 3° � ( � �' �. �� ri. .�� '� � .��•E , ►� O�O 4] O �a. O M69 ,,.�,5 �b $ �� y,'� �e� (5) : .:.... ;'t1� - ..- ..37.13 ' � � �` ( 1 c�St,� ''� ►01 N �`O ,, . . ,� � v �E�E; �t . . � � �3 `� \5 �,., �. ��o o a,p. � (2) ' OES� � I�� . h ,j,�•� � Jo �� S�•Sy $ L��` 'A� �� /f a. tio .� , �� ...,y I .' (3) . �� a��' ••• ' .�� . `�� u S !�L�� l � !� Tr � J \i �' ..•.'� .•i O � � „� P u` , �o -,� ., '•, .t � 2aT.e� � y• ,�~o ,, (8)'► . . '�. 'e� Q0 (4) P� i � ,� 4*��o . . .. � J .� ►`• �'�'. , v •. �� 3 ♦ �� ♦ • s• R=f p, �, ��•�� O 6 �' � � .. � .' �� ,�E' `�. � (23) ► . • � . . � ,�b �.• , ' ni ,� �3� �� l' � �� PT OF �1 �j _ �� •. PT Of � � � l0T 61 � ��I� LOT 1S. �.,72.3 � � .v� �� 'g�°J . 'S'� �:; , . � O�t�A�Di 4 ��. 9J`— .9G ' 0 (26 (32) '�•�s � . .� F �� ' *� 5 = rif�,,,'�* �•, �b 1 I , : o O n /� � 16)�. ,� - �qy. �� ZZ� � �1 I7,6.. ��.�a.�'., �C . Q/O ''� `� ��, '��e�q e 'v� � � � )i _ r '1'O � ,� �� . �17�6s , : f �j� � O,p ` T� . ; .;.�'� o = , � ,. , �y9 , c�� To. - ,. c �e� ' I �O� '\�8�A '� , `�� •e i C