Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Gengler clarified that the Commission is present to discuss the horse stable and not the issue <br />of the fence as that is a matter of civil litigation. <br />Tim Tetens, 17390 Baugh Street, stated that he is not against the horses and thinks they are great. <br />He stated that Mr. McCalister purchased the property for passive income with the intention of <br />renting the land out for the dog park, noting that home occupation permit has been pulled, and to <br />board two horses. He stated that his problem with this is those actions. He asked that this be <br />approved as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with certain conditions that would guide the activity <br />if it is going to be used for income -generating purposes. He stated that if the property is going to <br />be sold, there should be additional questions about the use. He stated that Mr. McCalister was <br />going to use the two boarded horses for therapeutic purposes, which would have people coming <br />and going from the property. He stated that his request would be to shift the approval from a <br />permanent variance to a CUP which would not be transferable and appropriate conditions could <br />be placed upon the use. <br />Commissioner Bauer asked if the horse therapy mentioned would require a home occupation <br />permit. <br />City Planner Martin commented that if the horses were being boarded and going to be used for <br />therapy, a home occupation permit would be needed. He stated that the homeowner has provided <br />documentation and proof that these are his horses. He stated that the home occupation permit part <br />of the request has been pulled and the only item before the Commission is for the horses. <br />Commissioner Bauer clarified that the only approval being considered then is for the keeping of <br />horses and any additional activity would require separate approval. <br />Mr. Tetens, commented that the horses were removed from the property today and every Saturday <br />and Sunday prior to this, there were ten -plus people on the property. He still requested that this <br />approval be done through a CUP rather than a variance which would allow conditions to be placed <br />upon the next property owners. <br />Commissioner Bauer clarified that the variance is to allow the horses, and any other activity would <br />require additional approvals, should someone in the future want to do something relating to <br />business. <br />Mr. Tetens, commented that even if the horses are not being used for therapeutical purposes or a <br />business and masses of people are being brought to the property on the weekends, that would <br />infringe on his way of living. <br />Commissioner Heineman stated that if the new property owners want to use this for business <br />purposes, they would need to apply as such. He stated that if someone wants to use the property <br />for personal purposes and wants to bring ten friends to their property, that is their right to do so. <br />Mr.Tetens, referenced the dog park business and noted issues between the two property owners <br />going back to April. <br />Planning Commission/ September 26, 2024 <br />Page 4 of 14 <br />