CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| TEST foo | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| blah | |
| Linda Kovac | 11/22/2016 6:20:50 PM |
| According to MOA On-Site representatives, horse waste can pollute drinking water in local on-site wells. The manure is especially hazardous during spring runoff. I believe allowing horses on R6 lots should not be allowed in order to protect the surrounding neighborhoods' water supplies. | |
| Holly Kent | 3/4/2004 10:18:21 AM |
| I am submitting this comment as the Executive Director of the Anchorage Waterways Council. Our limited experience with horse boarding operations has been very positive. Several years ago we received complaints from neighbors about a boarding operation with respect to waste runoff entering the creek. When we investigated and spoke with the operation owners they had genuinely not considered some of the pollution runoff concerns and moved quickly to implement our suggestions. Our reccomendation would be that the owners of properties that keep horses be required to submit a conservation plan to the Anchorage Soil and Water Conservation Service (ASWCD). The Municipality has, in the past, not spent any money on enforcement of zoning regulations beyond the complaints received from neighbors. The ASWCD would, as a part of managing conservation plans, regulary inspect these facilities for adherance to the plan which would include management practices for excluding potentially harmfull runoff from manure entering our waterways. | |
| Darcey Burnside | 1/11/2004 9:53:02 PM |
| Dear Mr. Barrett, I am writing in regard to Ms. Kirsten Ballard's letter to you December 18 in reference to the Title 21 proposed changes. I am a horse person and of course that seems to mean I automatically fall under the category of "step children of the trail system". In Ms. Ballard's letter to you, she is arguing the point of how detrimental adding the commercialization of horse facilities change to Title 21 would be to the trail system in Anchorage, mainly Far North Bicentennial Park. She points out specifically that she "is concerned for the city's recreational opportunities provided for them (horses)-namely trails." The commercial establishments that she is alluding to are not as she implies. She is taking the word "commercial" entirely out of context. She makes it sound like the "Industrial Revolution" is about to take place and take over the entire trail system as we know it today. It is not as if large commercial horse facilities are going to all of the sudden move in and take over the trails. The horse community is a pretty small one at best as they are expensive to care for and not everyone's recreational choice, obviously. The commercial horse facilites do, and will continue to, basically board the horses that are already being kept in the area but will allow the horse owners the choice to move to different barns for various reasons. Many of these facilites cater to training or showing students that are not even really interested in trail riding. Additionally, new facilities may allow space for a few more horses into the area but certainly not the masses. As far as being concerned for the trail use, the total miles of available trail use to horses (multi-use trails) needs to be taken into consideration as opposed to the total miles of trail available to skiers use. There really is no comparison. The skiers have plenty of options to ski on "ski only trails". Besides that, these are not privately owned trails folks, and even though the local ski club chooses to groom the trails, and horse use might create what they deem a less than perfect trail, does not mean we should not have access. Ms. Ballard is incorrect in assuming we do not help pay for this grooming. Several of my horse friends and myself have purchased Nordic Ski Club memberships in the past to help pay for the grooming, thus allowing us access (in their mind, not ours). We've worn those pins quite visibly and are still met with hostility. I must say that over the last two years it has gotten much better as both the horse community and the ski community have both worked toward educating the different groups on how to safely approach and pass one another. However, there are still quite a few hostiles. The group I ride with always goes out of our way to step aside etc, while skiers blast up from behind unannounced or continue to skate ski the whole trail, allowing no room for a horse to calmly stand. Ms. Ballard also states that a majority of the trails in Ruth Arcand park have become overgrown and are not used much by the equestrian community anymore and that simply is not true. These trails are maintained and used year round by horse owners, period. I cannot imagine what trail she or Doug Van Etton could possibly have been on that had no horse tracks or were unkempt, etc. unless this was during "break-up" when we should not be on the trails. These trails are very limited though and horses have the ability to cover a lot of ground, therefore, suggesting we keep only to these trials is absurd. It would be like my suggesting the skiers keep only to Hilltop. It's just not plausible nor is it fair. According to Ms. Ballard, the horses seen in Far North Bicentennial Park are in conflict with other users but it seems apparent to me they are in conflict with Ms. Ballard. True, horse hooves can cause damage to trails but so do irresponsible people who use the trails when they are closed. For instance, and I really hate to bring another user group into it as the horse community has been striving toward creating a more healthy and trail friendly environment but I am only referring to those that are guilty and responsible for these actions, bicycle tires can cause extensive damage to trails as well as people trudging upon them while they are in break up, and sometimes when we get a lot of rain. I respect the signs that are posted and ride in different areas (neighborhoods) while the trails are closed. We do volunteer to help clear and repair trails although I do not know if an organized horse group has done so to date. I would certainly not be opposed to help pay for these repairs through donation either and will encourage other horse people to do the same. In return, we would like to be treated with the same respect the skiers and skijorers have assumed for themselves. In conclusion, shame on Ms. Ballard for assuming this was a good opportunity for her to get up on her soap-box to preach, thus rallying the troops against the horse community. I guess this means we can't be friends? Sincerely, Darcey Burnside Horse Owner | |
| Linda Perkins | 12/27/2003 1:12:18 PM |
| Horses are already allowed in R-6 and this is precisely why horse owners seek out R-6 property. The proposed ordinance as drafted is completely unneccessary! First of all Municipal Code already states the total lot coverage of your Prinicpal structure and out buildings at 30%. Title 17 already addresses having more than 3 animals of any kind including horses requiring a Facilities Permit. As for odor and manure, a responsible farm owner takes cares of their property since most of us live on our farms. And want to be a good neighbor. We have a Consevation Plan and are Registered with DNR and Anchorage Soil & Water Conservation District. And for those concerned about horses in residential areas, if you live in a subdivision with covenants you don't have to worry about those of us with horses because you don't allow them anyway. I think that Platting & Zoning needs to keep out of making regulations that aren't neccessary and the Municipality can't afford. And leave those of us alone that wish to keep our rural lifestyles which is the reason most of us moved to the hillside to begin with. The only ammendment to Title 21 that needs to be made is allowing Private Equestrian Facilities so that we can operate without the fear of Code Enforcement harrassing us. And they could use their resources to better serve the people of Anchorage by going after developers filling in wet lands. | |
| Kirsten Ballard - NASSPA | 12/18/2003 11:07:07 AM |
| Dear Mr. Barrett: I am writing in regard to the changes proposed for Title 21. I realize you're looking for "horse sense" people at this point, however, I would suggest that this may be short-sighted, considering the potential impact to the community and other trail users who outnumber horse owners/users. As a statement of qualifications, I have had experience with horses, riding, pack trips and as a stable-helper who's responsibilities included exercising (riding) the animals in our care on a regular basis. I very much enjoy horses, riding, and appreciate the joy they bring to many. I do not own a horse now, but, could in the future. I want to make it clear that I am not "anti-horse." While not opposed to horses in a residential area, I am very concerned about the city's recreational opportunities provided for them - namely, trails. Commercial horse ventures will need trails to be viable, and I'm sure that some of them are already looking at existing trails as part of this venture. I would submit that existing trails are not enough to support commercial equestrian ventures in Anchorage at this time. Currently, Ruth Arcand Park is set aside for equestrian use. A majority of the trails there have become overgrown and are not used much by the equestrian community anymore, if at all. In fact, Doug Van Etten suggested at one time that trails in this area might make a suitable 'off leash' area for dog parks, since his experience living in that area and using trails there indicates that these trails are not used by horses and their riders (no horse tracks). Horses are often seen in Far North Bicentennial Park, in conflict with other users there. When horses tread on trails, they cause damage. This is a very expensive problem for the city and the ski clubs, especially in winter. When horses use groomed multi-use trails intended for skiing, snowshoeing and skijoring, they are met with resentment and disdain. Horse hoof-prints cause literally thousands of dollars in damage to trails, groomed or not, on an annual basis. Damaged trails are a public safety issue for other users, when dogs and people might break ankles in the huge divots/potholes left in the winter and spring trails that are not maintained with the intention of horse impacts. In the spring when trails are muddy, horse hoof-prints leave pot-holes that tend to persist (sometimes for years), creating another public safety issue for the summer users - walkers, runners and bikers. The shared use of these trails is also a safety concern for the horseback riders and their mounts, when dogs, leashed or not, unaccustomed to horses can create dangerous situations for them. Many of the people I have spoken to in non-equestrian user groups are fairly convinced the equestrian community does not contribute to the trail grooming funds. Why should they? They don't need groomed trails, and yet they damage them with every hoof-print left behind. To our knowledge, the equestrian clubs do not organize volunteer groups to keep trails clear of dead-fall, brush, bridge repair/replacement, signs, and other conditions that affect their usability - in effect, the equestrians are getting a free ride at the expense and effort of other user groups. (The Parks & Rec permitting program could provide you with a greater degree of certainty in this regard, as we must obtain permits on an annual basis to maintain our skijoring trails here in the city). The expenses and efforts expended towards city trail maintenance by a dedicated few is VERY important, since the city does not provide us with funding or personnel for trails maintenance - this is provided primarily through volunteers, donations and grants obtained with little or no help from the city. (The city does groom the Coastal & Chester Creek Trail, and I believe the Tour of Anchorage trail. Please check w/NSAA and the Parks & Rec Maintenance Department for better trail maintenance numbers/figures.) I would strongly suggest that if more commercial horse areas are proposed for residential areas, they must come with a price - dedicated, NEW horse trails that do not include the use of existing multi-use trails that are groomed for skiing. It is not acceptable to add the burden of commercial horse use on existing trails with the cost-benefit being provided only to the very few in the commercial enterprise, with no cost-benefit to the community. I would argue that to add commercial horse ventures would, in fact, come at a cost-detriment to the other user groups, the city and the community at large. Many existing trails, especially those in Far North Bicentennial Park, are already overcrowded, and becoming even more so with increasing use and user conflicts. Just as developers of a subdivision are required to build roads, drainage improvements, water & sewer service, etc., Commercial Horse Facilities must in turn be required to build new trails, re-integrate the Ruth Arcand trails into the horse using community, and commit to keeping all of them brushed, clear of felled trees and usable for their activities. New trails need to be considered for other areas wherever commercial facilities are proposed, and they should be separated from other user groups to avoid conflicts. The commercial facilities can use signs and an educational campaign, i.e., club memberships, to do so. They must also commit to staying off of trails groomed for skiing, skijoring and snowshoeing due to the inexcusable damage they cause to these trails at the expense of others. If the commercial horse users can commit to staying off of trails used for skiing and skijoring, I'm sure that the Nordic Skiing Association of Anchorage (NSAA) and the skijoring club, along with other user groups/clubs, can in turn work to educate our members to respect horse-only trails and leave them alone, thereby avoiding the increasing user conflicts that are inevitable. Otherwise, I fear a new dawn of overcrowding, user conflicts, public safety issues and heaven knows what else. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be glad to discuss this with you anytime. Kirsten Ballard President North American Skijoring and Ski Pulk Assoc. | |
| Kirsten B | 12/18/2003 11:06:19 AM |
| Robert gill | 11/20/2003 9:14:24 AM |
| Horses should not be allowed in r-6 zoning. If a person wants to keep horses, they should investigate the property thet are buying first and check if horses are allowed. They shouldn't subject their neighbors to the nuisance of the smell and danger of well pollution that horses inherently have. I live in R10 zoning where up to 3 horses are allowed in our subdivision are allowed. the few people that have horses are considerate. We live in 1 acre zoning however.Therefore,it is not a reasonable expectation in r-6 zoning to have horses. the reasonable expectations of a majority of residents should not be disregarded. | |
| Rick Davis | 11/18/2003 2:45:48 PM |
| I do not support a change requiring a use permit to keep a horse on your property in R-6 zoned areas. That is the reason many people seek out R-6 properties and to add this limitation will lower the value of these lots. This detail is vague so I'm not sure if this is based on keeping horses for personal use or is it is just geared toward commercial horse ventures. Requiring a permit for commercial ventures may warrant further discussion. Requiring a permit for personal use I oppose. | |
| Catherine Call | 11/12/2003 3:13:22 PM |
| The language available on the website is very vague. Are you talking about making people have a conditional use approval to keep their pet horse in their backyard? or are you talking about having a conditional use to have a private, COMMERCIAL, equestrian facility in your yard? What is the definition of private equestrian facility? What portions of the facility will have to meet lot coverage limitations? Is there a section of title 21 which prohibits keeping pets in residential districts? And finally, do subdivision covenants supercede zoning? | |
| Mikal Hendee | 11/10/2003 5:03:46 PM |
| I am opposed to any equestrian facility within a residential area that is not currently zoned for such a facility. The impacts on water quality and odor far outweigh any benefit of such a facility. The Municipality does not have the resources to enforce any conditional use regulations that may be imposed on the operator. | |
| Bill Demming | 11/10/2003 1:02:43 PM |
| Don't get me wrong I like horses, however residential areas are not the place for them. I read that odors and manure problems could be an issue. I thought large areas, such as 4-5 acres would be required for horse operations, particularly commercial/equestrian operations. As required for any business operation, their influence on residential areas must be considered. I think that equestrian facilities need to be in large areas, free and clear of residential neighborhoods, zoned for that purpose. | |
| Michael Carlson | 11/10/2003 10:41:42 AM |
| I am opposed to allowing private equestrian facilities in any residential zone as a conditional use. The odor genereated by concentrations of horses is offensive and no existing homeowner should have that impact imposed upon him. I do not beleive that any regulatory language added to the proposed ordinance attempting to control odors could be or would be effectively enforced by the Municipal Zoning Inspectors. Currently a rezoning process is requried to accomodate this use. This higher standard should rermain in place. | |