|
<br />It
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />tit
<br />
<br />in,! the n~mber of horses H.'as to avoid indiscriminate use .of back'lar.d pasturiny of
<br />ar;i;71als, to keep people from crowdinq animals illto small areas '.dthout feed and care.
<br />He described the facility he Ivas mainta.ining, saying his horses Ivere not alloweJd to
<br />ru!! free. He could see no object.ion to allowing four or six horses if any horses
<br />at all were permitted under the same conditions. Outside of some little additional
<br />noise - which could not compare with consistent barking by dogs - he couldn't see
<br />the difference bet\veen ha'hng two, four, or six llorses. lie said he had attempted to
<br />:o'lim.:.nate dust problems and had hauled alVa~1 mamlre to avoid odor problems. He added
<br />that the entire (juest.ion to hifl' h'as one of ,,'hether the animals co:.:ld L'e handled in
<br />the available space in a faci li ty designed to handle up to six horses wi th adequate
<br />feed, traininy, and exercise.
<br />
<br />Co:mci1man l1urray asked Mr. Cornelison to comment on statement in the Zoning Board
<br />minutes that he (Cornelison) had been told only two horses would be permitted and that
<br />he hild agreed to that at the time the building permit for the barn lvas requested.
<br />;':L Cornelison explained that when he applied for the building permit he thought the
<br />property was in the County, tha t tilL' permi t was requested on the basis of pre-ex.isting
<br />use - keeping four horses. He saili four horses ",'ere kept or. the property at the time
<br />of annexation and the lot size had not varied from that time. He said he had the
<br />cit'! attorney's opinion in writing conceding tile prior existence of four horses.
<br />Also, thJ.t nor:i1ing other than an addi tion to the barn had changed since that time.
<br />In response to the question about being told two horses only would be allowed, Mr.
<br />Cornelison said he called the building superintendent's attention to the pre-existing
<br />use (four horses) and had told him he would resist efforts to restrict the number to two.
<br />
<br />Bill Parsons, 2735 Cheryl Street, and Paul Valevich, 2755 Cheryl Street, supported
<br />Nr. Cornelison's request for variance as requested 'Thell could see no reason for re-
<br />str~ctinCi the number to tl"O horses if any were allo..'cd at all, and they felt th1t the
<br />additional horses would not have a negative effect or. the neighborhood.
<br />
<br />Richard Butler, attorney representing Dr. Gordon Miller of 2730 Chuckanut Street, sub-
<br />mitted for inclusion ~n the record of this hearing those petitions presented at the
<br />Zoning Board meeting. Ii.:' thought it doubtful that the Zoning Board was the proper
<br />body to consid'2r Nr. CornlC'ison's appeal, sayir;q the variance requested was for a
<br />u.sp d.iffl?rent than that perm.itted bli city ord~n.:lnce and should morc properly be ap-
<br />pealed unuer conditional use provisio~s of tlie code. Mr. Butler r~inted out an error
<br />with r:3qard to Mr. Corn1eJ.son's statement that the city attornes' hyi conceded four
<br />horses were kept on the property prior to applicability of the cit,I's ordinance.
<br />H~. [Butler) said that in the municipal court prosecution on violations of tllis ordinance,
<br />ti2!:? city attorney had Et.:lted for purposes of resolving the dispute that he was willing
<br />to "assume" the pre-cxistinll use '(four Ilorses). Ho:vever, the attorney further ex-
<br />plained, Mr. Butler sdid, that thF.' chan'Jc in the structuro. requirt!d compliance with
<br />the code. Mr. Butler added that a variance at this point h'ou1d serve only Mr.
<br />Cornelison's own pleasure, not the welfare of the neighborhood, and would be in direct
<br />violation of the code.
<br />
<br />Dr. Gordon Miller, 2730 Chuckanut Street, presented pictures to Council members show-
<br />.i"'H] his property ill relationship to that of MT. Cor.nclison' s and the seven-foot
<br />u::ilit~J easemont separating the tlvO properties. He described Mr. Cornleison's
<br />facility, noting damagt.' to trees plJnted for screeniny ptlTposes, stand.ing water
<br />I,hich he claimed made Un' exercise aruas totally unsuitable [01. horses, and existence
<br />of buildings \-.'hich 1essellc.'j the ,'mount of space actually a\:ill labla for keeping horses.
<br />fie sau1 the pl,;ce was a:] eyesore - unpainted buildings, })uildin" materials, piles of
<br />.,?;,-:nt.:re. Also, thc} place attracted flitJs and was a firu jia:~ard because of storage of
<br />!ic.::.roleu;;J byproducts n~ilr hay stora<]e. He said the erristing uses were unacceptable and
<br />,e,ad ~!on.' far beyond the one- or two-horse maintenance intended.
<br />
<br />Others objecting to the proposed four/six horse facility were Peggy Miller, 2720 Chuck-
<br />an:1t; John Graham, 2715 Sarah Lane; Robt'rt Castle, 2760 Chuckanut; Paul Bendix, 2720
<br />Sarah Lane; Paul Rozell, 2350 Crescent Avenue. Their objections were based on presence
<br />of flies, mosquitoes, and d.irt constituting a health hazard; depreciation of property
<br />'.'alues; il1ega1i ty; and doubt that the open area was sufficient to meet code provisions
<br />ior even th'O horses.
<br />
<br />Councilman Bradley asked Mr. Cornelison what practical difficulties or hardships would
<br />be encountered if t,he Zqning Board decision was affirmed and the appeal denied. Mr.
<br />
<br />5/12/75 - 17
<br />
<br />2Go2
<br />
|