05/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C:;r:-wlison ,answered that the cost for hoarding horses I"ou.id amount to about $100 per TOilth per horse. fic' Oh':1Cdsix horses, he silid, tk-'O of which were i.n training elsewhere, <in:.;;'} t u:o I,'ol:}d hav.:, U.o be l,oarded out. He mentioned involvement of his fam.ily .':~ :"ar i 01.1$ hor-sl':: t .'-"d: :)] Ii-? an:i (}ndUT2lnCe pro9rams and said it w'ould be an i nconveni ence hav.ing to travel to train dnd ex.-,rcise the horses if they were not kept in the present fac:i:;.t~:. In t'urr:ik'!" rcsponse.to Counc.ilman Bradley, he said he would not have to tear (ic,:" an'.: bui Idings I that the l,!uldinq constructed originally had three stalls with tack rOG."" ar,d storage room COIN2rted to three additional stalls. ,e .'.iL Corne.Ii son I\'as then e[l von the opportuni ty to question those presenting test:.imony i;, oppos.itio:J to his appeal. D.iscussion between him and Dl'. M.iller centered on condi- ::i on of the ut.! li ty casement b",t.,'C'en the properties I present condi tion of the training arcoa, ma teria1s stored on Dr. Mi 11er' s property, problems vlhich neighbors might antici- !_:otc auring the comi,nq summer months, etc. Eel johnriuff, buildincJ department- explained the issue of "use" may have been clouded by the way the apJy.:al l\'a3 stated, that really the .issue was whether reduction in area of ., :I::,} to .L,,'ss t!::'lrJ th"" al1o;.ah1e minimum size required for keeping horses would be Cirar:t:Gd. He cited Section 9.7.34 for authority granted the Zoning Board to consider the appeal.. Mr. Johrlduff noted for the record that Mr. Cornelison had stated at the Zonin~; Board meeting that he had purchased additio!lal acreage convenient to his resi- dvnc:e. He said that: should be considered as a factor so far as the point of inconven- ~ence was concerned. !i,} noted too that the building permi t was issued on the basis of plans that showed three stalls plus three areas the same size as the stalls called "stora~.;s' areas." lie commented on inspections of the building and contacts with Mr. Cor- n"dison about the numher of horses al101\'cd and explained that there is little else can j,." 60ne \"1 th regard to .1101", a [wi Iding is going to be constructed other than to take the .3pp1.icant's wor6 that the construction I"ould proceed according to the plans submi tted. I,!I. Johnduff added that a site plan lvas also submitted by Mr. Cornelison and that the ];uilJing department would fo110',;' up with rr::gard to compliance to required landscaping ~-;:)Ct,'n -thereon. /.:r. Corneliso!1 in rebuttal. said he III3S making every effort to make the facility ac- ceprab1e and convenient for everyone jnvo1ved, that .it was not finished at this time :113] nly iJecause of uncertainty :'fLout ".lJat would be allowed. However, he felt if he was given the variance that in a few months - to a110.v lanr15c2pinq, improvement of the exercise circle, etc. - there would be no objections and the facility would in fact enhance the neighborhood with an "old country charm." He re- iterated his opinion that if any horses at all were going to be allowed on the property"he could see no difference in keeping two or six. .e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Councilman Bradley expressed the opinion that the Zoning Board did have authority under the city ::'ode to pass judgment on this request Eor variance, since horses were allowed in the RA zone and the request was f6r reduction in'lot size. He felt there had not been enough pl.oof of practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships and that the appeal should be den1ec1~ . Councilman Murray concurred. He wondered if a time .limit should be imposed for reduction ~n the number of horses not" kept on the property. Gene Haxton, building department, noted Mr. Cornelison's appeal of the violation to circuit court and said that staff probably would not take any action until a decision in that case fI'as reached, so a time limitation would perhaps be in- appropriate. He thought there would be court action in a reasonable length of time. Recommendation: Unanimous, that the Zoning Board decision be upheld and that the appeal be denied; that findings supporting denial of the request as noted in building department staff notes and Zoning Board minutes of March 27,. 1975 be adopted, as well as findings of this Hearing Panel that sufficient proof of practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardship had not been shown; and that the number of horses now on the property be reduced to two within a reasonable length of time, subject to building department inspections. Approve - ~ -" 5/12/75 - 18 2.~3