Minutes - Planning Commission - 09/26/2024

Home

City Planner Martin commented that the legal nonconformity or grandfathering would apply if there was information that horses had been kept consistently. He stated that if the activity ceases for a period of one year, the approval would be needed again. He stated that because there is not that information that the horses had been kept on the property consistently, the approval is needed. Citizen Innut Troy Richardson, 17450 Baugh Street, stated that he moved to his property four years ago and there are horses two miles up the road in Nowthen. He stated that it would be ridiculous to not allow horses in a barn. He stated that the property owner has agreed to clean up the manure and the horses should be allowed. He stated that people should mind their own business and do what they want on their own property. He commented that there are deer and turkey, and he enjoys seeing the horses as well. He stated that the people are great, and this is a great community, and people should be allowed to have horses if they want. Commissioner Heineman appreciated the input of the resident and agreed. He clarified that the recommendation from staff is to approve the variance to allow the horses to stay. John McCalister, 17400 Baugh Street NW, commented that he purchased the property with the intention of having horses and called the City to verify that he could have horses. He was told that he could have two horses. He stated that there was no mention that the stables were too close, but recognized that perhaps the staff person answering the call was not aware the building was a stable. He commented that he did list the property for sale due to some work -related things as he is relocating back to Arizona. He stated that the people that are interested in the property would intend to bring horses with them. He referenced the comments made by his neighbor during the public hearing. He stated that he is on a plane tomorrow morning for Arizona and has not received a letter about the fence. He stated that the fence has been in that position for 15 years and his neighbor has been served by an attorney but refused to secure an attorney and therefore that is the established boundary of the properties under the law of adverse possession. Commissioner Heineman asked staff for insight on the law of adverse possession as stated. Planning Manager Larson commented that the adverse possession laws in Minnesota are tough and require certain thresholds of years of ownership, living on the property, etc., and would need to be settled in court. He stated that the City is not a part of that as that is a civil matter between the two property owners. Susan Arellano, Coon Rapids resident and related to the applicant, referenced the question of whether a fence should be allowed to be built on property that is not his. She stated that the fence existed long before John purchased the home and in review of past imagery of the property, the fence existed before the neighbor lived on his property as well. She stated that the neighbor never had a problem with the fence until John moved in and the neighbor started to tear down the fence. She stated that John put that section of the fence back up that was torn down. She stated that the fence existed prior to the subdivision of the property and if it was an issue, it should have been an issue back then. Planning Commission/ September 26, 2024 Page 3 of 14