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. | |
|---|---|
| Laura Elliott | 10/19/2005 7:29:17 PM |
| My opinion on the proposed changes are for them to not go into affect. I do not currently own a horse, however I enjoy renting horses to ride as well as take lessons in Anchorage and the Valley. One of the greatest joys and stress relievers I have in my life is to ride a horse through the forest trails at the equestrian park off of Abbott. But my opinion is derived from several points. First: For those who own horses and have them on their property or board horses, proper care is mandatory. And I have visited many private and boarding facilties over the past 2 years and am impressed in the care people uphold with their horses and property. However, if these changes go into affect, several negative results will occur for horses and people alike. For one thing, the size of building restrictions are not designed by simple common sense. In order to have the maximum benefit to horses and people alike, barns, feed storage, and exercise areas are required. With winter causing ground issues (thus safety issues), if someone wanted to cover their exercise area the proposed changes would not be allowed, as the barn and arena would easily oversize the housing. Now, last time I checked, the average human is between 125lbs and 300lbs (for the average population). Horses can range from 300lbs to well into the ton range. It only make sense that the larger animal would require larger facilities than the human. Now if it was my property, I would have a large barn, arena, and covered arena area, and a small house. I do not have children, am married, and simply do not need a large sprawling house. Second, by passing this rule you will lose several community assisting programs, including the therapeutic riding programs which assist the physically and psychologically handicapped. As a medical professional, I have seen the benefits first hand that horses can provide children and adults. I have seen children in wheelchairs develop balance and strength that enables them to walk with crutches. I have heard children who have not spoken for years, burst out in rapid speech to tell their parents how wonderful the horseride was. And my own personal benefits include a huge stress relieving break from my hectic weeks in the office treating patients. There are many reasons to allow horses in the community. They provide a venue for 4-H and Pony Club, which teaches responsibilty, self worth, dedication, and kindness that you simply do not get as easily anywhere else. It also provides a form of scholarship that many children would not have to help them continue their education in college. I myself was awarded a full scholarship to college for riding horses. All of these things play into a well rounded, caring community. It is a shame to see several individuals knowingly moving into livestock areas of town, only to complain. I thought when I moved to Alaska that people were more open minded and caring. But I have realized that if these nonsensical rulings pass, I, my patients, and our community will suffer. It is enough of a disheartening situation that I will seriously consider moving back to the lower 48 where there are still areas of horse friendly neighborhoods. Will be a shame, as this state needs every professional to help with its healthcare. Sincerely, Dr. Laura Culp Elliott | |
| Ben Milam | 10/19/2005 9:04:14 AM |
| This is not just an Anchorage issue, it is an Alaska issue. Animals have always been one of the major draws that causes people to move to Alaska. Most of the people in Anchorage and Alaska move here because they were not happy with the hustle and bustle restrictions of the lower 48. While the majority of them don't own horses, many of them stop to look and admire as a horse goes by. Horses play a significant part in the quality of life we enjoy in Alaska for everyone, not just the horse owners. If you really want to improve quality of life in Anchorage, pass laws that make it easier to own and board horses, not more difficult. | |
| Ben Milam | 10/19/2005 8:45:35 AM |
| michelle myers | 10/18/2005 11:26:51 AM |
| Oppose this case as written. It might be nice to have animal control as the central point of contact, and for them to work with the many different municipal departments to respond to many different needs. Would like to see some reasonable rules applied that take into consideration that a 300 lb mini is not the same as a 1900 lb draft, as horses come in many different sizes. Large barns and indoor exercise areas can improve year round use, it does mean allowing a secondary building to be on the larger side. Thank you for considering reasonable alternatives. | |
| Karen Louise Johnston | 10/18/2005 7:24:50 AM |
| As one of the most recent horse owners in Anchorage, I am beginning to discover the tremendous therapeutic value of affiliating with these large animals and their owners. Owning horses in Anchorage presents some unique challenges, but the rewards are often beyond words. As a family, our decision to enter the world of horses was based on the developmental needs of our 12 year old daughter. We agreed that horse care and training would be a means for her to develop self-determination, responsibility, empathy, awareness, care for the environment we all share, communication skills, and a strong sense of personal worth based on her growing knowledge and ability to handle a 1200lb animal! The journey is unfolding with more work than we imagined, but also with more benefits. We are meticulous about the care of our two horses because the investment is so great. We clean their paddock three times a day, bagging the manure, and either taking it to a designated municipal disposal site, or giving it to neighbors for compost. Sonja and I are currently doing a science unit on the ecosystem of the barnyard for school, hoping to learn more about how horses contribute to the enrichment of our soils. I used to have a garden in Fairbanks, and always used decomposed horse manure for fertilizer. Lately the neighbors near where our horses reside have been circulating rumors and misinformation about the ordinance being considered tonight. I hope the matter will resolve with more clarity than it currently generates. I also hope that the Assembly will look at the long-range effect of these revisions in terms of it's psychological impact on horse owners. We may be a small percentage of the population, but the horse people I have met are some of our best citizens. Children who are raised with horses become high-functioning individuals capable of making great contributions to society since they have been raised with discipline and responsibility. Please don't take that away from our children. By restricting access to horses, if that is part of the long-term plan (as implied in many of the comments), you will be taking away from our future as a community. Horses bring people together, and create a sense of community. I love walking our horses through the zoo parking lot because children and adults flock over to interact with us. One day a van filled with severely handicapped adults drove in as we were passing by. The driver waved, so we walked over and my horse, Missy, put her head into the open window to socialize with a woman named Rachel. She was blind and mute, but I will never forget her response. There was laughing, waving of arms, and a beautiful moment of joy that was brought to her by my horse. For a brief moment we were a family, sharing our common humanity and need for loving social contact. My horse became a bridge across which we traveled for a moment to touch each others lives with joy. This is only part of the gift that horses bring to humans. I hope you will recognize that we must never consider limiting access to horses or other animals for that matter. Those of us who choose the hard and often expensive road of horse ownership do it for the benefit of others as well as ourselves. If you are being forced to set limits on how many horses can reside on a piece of land, please offer sensible alternatives like a city equestrian stable or park where these wonderful creatures may be housed and maintained for the benefit of all. | |
| judi ramage | 10/17/2005 9:52:21 PM |
| i oppose this ordinance as written. there is no need for it. animal control can deal with issues of care for animals and the health department can deal with waste issues, if there are any. if i want to live in a 800 sq ft house and have a barn that is 12000 sq ft, that is my choice on my land. i live in the country so i can have my animals. i do not choose to live in a subdivision with my neighbors windows looking into mine. the horse community in the municipality of anchorage pays taxes, buys large amounts of hay and grain grown and produced locally and is shipped from the lower 48, provides quality of life to thousands of people, and cares about our community. | |
| Rita Olson | 10/17/2005 8:52:50 PM |
| We are the proud owners of 2 wonderful horses which we now board at a facility that may close in the future. I have been looking for Horse property in Anchorage for the last 4 months, the reason it's very hard to find suitable property is because we need to make sure horses are welcomed in the area. I suggest if you are going to buy a house on R6 property, and you don't like living next to horses or possible horses in the future, I suggest you do your homework before buying your property. If horses are permitted, then sometime in the future, you may live next to them. Don't complain about us, stay away from horse friendly property. I have stayed away from NON-Horse property. Oh believe me, they are out there. And yes, even on acre lots, it clearly is written in the CCR's. "NO LIVESTOCK" So this is a suggestion to all you people that are trying to push horses out of Anchorage, stay on your NON-horse lots, and I'll keep looking for horse friendly property!!!!!!!! And as far as the zoning, leave it alone, I think if I pay over a half a million for a acre on hillside, I don't expect someone to tell me what I can or can't do on MY property. | |
| Denise Gobble | 10/17/2005 6:56:34 PM |
| When I buy land that has been zoned for animals, I do not expect it to be changed just because others decide they want to live where I am living. There are areas in Anchorage where you can't have horses or large animals, so let them move there. Also, this is Alaska, if you don't want to live next to animals, move back to the lower 48. Don't change our zoning after the fact, that is just wrong politics. | |
| Angelia Morris | 10/17/2005 5:04:06 PM |
| As a homeowner I have been very happy living in Anchorage. I purchased my first home five years ago and have been looking forward to buying a larger home with a bigger lot as my family has grown. I have also become a horse owner. I have been looking at property in Anchorage which would allow me to keep my horses on my property. However, this ordinance severely restricts my ability and my willingness to purchase land in Anchorage. I currently keep my horses at a wonderful private facility where I worry that I may find myself having to move to a less user-friendly barn before I am ready to make the leap into horse property ownership. My next choice is to move out of the Anchorage area and into the Valley. I know a number of other horse owners who have done just that. It seems that there needs to be a way to keep all property owners happy. Equestrian activities are a wonderful way for kids and adults to enjoy the outdoors and the multitude of trails in Anchorage AND to keep tax dollars in Anchorage. | |
| Angelia Morris | 10/17/2005 4:54:50 PM |
| Pat Monahan | 10/17/2005 2:50:59 PM |
| This proposed ordinace is just another example of people coming up from the lower 48 trying to tell us what to do. You do not want to live by horses, look elswhere. I am a life long Alaskan who loved the way Anchorage used to be. The Anchorage I grew up with is now gone! Now we just have yuppies whining about every thing. Leave the horse people of Anchorage alone!! | |
| Katie Nolan | 10/15/2005 9:25:54 PM |
| The original stated purpose of this ordinance was solely to legalize minor and incidental business uses in residential areas. At the time of it's original creation, the Planning Department had been denying Animal Control Facility Licenses if the facility had a hint of a business in any aspect of its operation. The ordinance as presented does not accomplish that goal. Instead, it has morphed into elimination of private property rights for horse owners (the accessory structure portion of the ordinance) and a added a foothold into regulating numbers of all species of animals into the Land Use Code. I urge the Assembly to refute this ill-conceived attempt. Ms. Shamberg and Ms. Ossiander have created an alternative that would be a better start on achieving the original stated goal of this ordinance. I look forward to that alternative (AO-2005-150) as a possibility for the future, and urge support of this endeavor. | |
| Steven Ellis | 10/12/2005 12:42:59 PM |
| Approximately one percent of the Anchorage population owns horses. After listening to many of the horse owners in meetings and reading their comments it is if their rights should overshadow the rights of the other 99 percent of the population. One of my neighbors has two horses and there aren't any real problems right now. In the past, from what I have heard from others,is they didn't remove the manure very often and my water well was the receiving area for the manure tea during breakup. Sounds appetizing doesn't it. My other neighbor owns rental property on South Birchwood Loop between the Glenn and the Old Glenn. They have a very shallow well and the depth to bedrock is about 30 feet. The Owner next door moved in several horses, a donkey and I belive a goat. The paddock is less than 300 feet from their water well and the grade is down hill to the well. The owner of the animals is a Professional Engineer who designs and installs wells and septic systems. My neighbors asked what protection there was if their water quality was affected. They found out there wasn't any. They also have noise and odor problems but the ability of the Municipality to enforce these nuisances is minimal to non-existant. Horse owners let their animals go to the bathroom where ever they are. They assume that nobody else minds and that isn't true. You really haven't heard from the average citizen/homeowner. This issue will not be important to them until they have a problem with animals in their neighborhood. The people with a vested interest are the ones providing comments, not the average person. You have to think in the perspective of what would it be like to live next door to a place that doesn't keep a clean facility. I've also noticed that some of the comments on this web site are from people that already have illegal facilities and have been illegal for a long time. What makes you think they will comply with new ordinances and the Municipality will do any enforcment. So please spend some time thinking about how this ordinace affects all of the citizens | |
| Katie Henning | 5/10/2005 2:31:07 PM |
| The established LDA owners must be able to stay!! Many of these owners have been in our community for a long time. They are well-respected and are contributing members of our community. They have a passion to live a rural life style within our city. Many animal lovers, children organizations, and disabled people have benifitted from having LDA's - especially horses -- right here in Anchorage. The Ruth Arcand Equestrian Park was built to accomodate fun, and exciting LDA events. When many of the current LDA owners purchased property, they did so with the approval of the city and have remained accountable. Now, because our city's population has expanded, non-animal owners CHOSE - MAY I RESTATE - CHOSE to move next to a property with LDAs and now have the audacity to complain. Government is to be respected and I applaud most of the efforts to keep our city a great place to live. However, last time I checked, we are still a free country and have rights, expecially as tax paying property owners. If the P&Z and the Assembly wants to decide - GOING FORWARD - how to regulate new applicants for LDA's - great, but let's make a decision that will respect & honor long term, responsible LDA owners!! Please make a decision that will allow current LDA owners to be "grand-fathered" in!! Very Respectfully, Katie M. Henning | |
| Linda Perkins | 5/9/2005 4:48:17 PM |
| The ordinance proposed by the Staff of the Municipal Planning Department is totally flawed! Except for using abutting lots. We looked for years for our Horse Property on the Hillside and have invested our whole life into our property. We got all the required building permits to build our 12 Stall Barn for our Large Horses and 70 X 90 Indoor Riding Arena to train our Miniature Horses. We also have several individual Miniature Horse Barns. And now they propose to tell us we can't fill our Barns. We have had the required Facility License from Animal Control since they started requiring those licenses but upon trying to renew our license we were denied by Zoning for possible Home Occupation Violations. Needless to say most animal owners are scared to apply for their Facility License because of Zoning. All one has to do is look at what we have been put through by trying to comply and do the right thing but no matter what improvements we make to our property the harrassment continues. We are proud of our Ranch and believe it is one of the nicest and cleanest Facilities in Anchorage. We are complimented daily about how nice our place is. Those people that do not like animals should not move next door to them. There are plenty of other places in Anchorage for people to live if they don't share our same desire for a Rural Lifestyle. At the hearing last November several members of the Commission said they were looking forward to a field trip, we were looking forward to showing you our Ranch, but nobody came. From what I understand not one Horse Property was visited. There seems to be a concerted effort to run all the horses and horse businesses out of Anchorage. The agrument that we are commercial in residential is ridiculous. Doesn't anybody understand what benefits Agriculture has in the Community, or has everyone lost their perspective. The R-5, R-6, etc. Large Lots areas throughout Hillside, Girdwood, Chugiak and Birchwood are not your typical residential neighborhoods like Rogers Park, Nunaka Valley or Sahalee Subdivision. We are Rural and bought our property because we wanted to enjoy a rural lifestyle with our animals and provide a much needed service for the community. There are numerous Home Based Businesses all around us which is one of the reasons we chose to live where we do. The new Title 21 rewrite encourages mixed use zoning we believe it is time the Municipality accepted the fact that Agriculture and Home Based Businesses are a very large reality in the Large Lot Districts and we have existed for years. We have been in business since 1997 and continue to jump through hoops for the Municipality to try and follow their rules which seem to change daily. It is time the abuse by Zoning be stopped and a policing agency within the Municipality be formed to watch over its employees and hold them accountable for their actions and treatment of the people who pay their wages. We the Citizens of the Municipality of Anchorage. It is also time that the Municipality respected our Private Property Rights. Instead of only catering to those few people that complain about everything and have no life of their own. Respectfully Submitted James & Linda Perkins Amazing Grace Miniature Horse Ranch 7340 Holman Ave Anchorage, AK 99516 | |
| BERT MCQUEEN | 5/9/2005 3:23:06 PM |
| There is some confusion by the staff. We have had meetings and at every turn we on the sub-committee have told staff we didn't see the need for changes to the existing ordinance. I have heard that some of the staff has indicated that the sub-committee was in total agreement with staff on everything they are presenting at tonight's meeting. They may want to have their hearing checked. WE ARE NOT IN Agreement. When it comes to the care , safety, and impact Larger animals have on neighbors, the water, and other environmental concerns; there are ordinances in place that cover they concerns. Lot coverage: Staff continues tries to limit our lot coverage. I have to say that working with some of the people has been difficult; however, we have moved forward. In some of the past proposals we were told lot coverage for out building should be twice the size of the residence; now we are being told that the Muni will allow us up to 9% lot coverage. the problem with this is; we already have 30%. The muni is not giving us anything; in fact with the proposal presented tonight we loss 21% of our lot coverage. I purchased my property with an understanding that I could use 30% coverage. And, I have always considered building a horse facility to house my horses. I've thought of building an indoor arena, a barn and a round pen. With these new restrictions I will loss that possibility, because the restriction are to limiting. It's like changing horses in mid stream. I purchased with one amount and now when I'm able to start building you're changing the rule. Somehow, this doesn't seem fair. Not to mention if I were to sell and move somewhere more horse friendly, how will this newly proposed ordinance affected my property value? Will I be financially damaged by this ordinance?, Because the new owner would only be able to build within these new requirements. I suppose Staff hasn't heard us as well us we think they should. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT. ON ANOTHER NOTE, This ordinance is being presented as a horse ordinance. This is misleading. If this ordinance was to pass, if affects not just horse people. But, because it is referred to as the large animal ordinance,many in the community don't understand the effect it has on them, for example, some may want to build a large building to store their motor home, snowmobile and four wheeler only to find that they aren't able to do this because this "horse ordinance" changed their lot coverage. This isn't being forthright and honest to the citizens of Anchorage. It seems the horse owners have been targeted, because it's a smaller group, to accomplish a larger goal. If brought honestly before the citizens, this would be shot down. No one wants to and is willing to give up their land usage entitlement, with no compensation or consideration. | |
| Bobbi Wells | 4/29/2005 4:11:53 PM |
| Comments for inclusion in the P&Z packet regarding the Proposed Large Domestic Animal/Facility OrdinanceTo be heard May 9, 2005 When the original version of this ordinance was tabled with instruction to Staff to bring together a group composed of users, non-users, and involved agencies, it was assumed what would result would be a common consensus. That didn’t happen. What we STILL have is an ordinance in search of a purpose. I oppose passage of this ordinance at this time. Should the new land use regulations 21.05.050 thru 21.05.070 be approved, you will eliminate 75-85% of existing horsekeeping properties anyway, so why are we wasting time passing an ordinance that does nothing more than place another limit on only horses and barns? Staff would have you believe that current ordinances are inadequate to protect the health, safety, and welfare of both residents and animals. In Title 15 and 21 are limitations regarding land use that address area, lot coverage, height, prohibited buildings, yards and other open space, and location of structures on the property. There are stream and water well protections and setbacks. There are watershed protections. You cannot contaminate your property, nor your neighbors. You are prohibited from any use that is a nuisance or hazard, whether through sight, sound, smell, or discharge to your neighbor. Title 17’s purpose covers the health, welfare, and safety of animals which also protects the public. In 2003, additional ordinances were added requiring multi-animal licenses for 4+ horses (or any combo of 7 indoor/outdoor animals) as well as another license for those that board animals. There is no limit on the number of animals because they know that it is the owner’s care and management that make a safe environment for a healthy animal. Staff doesn’t think it is appropriate to have non-traditional accessory uses in residential zoning districts, large lot or otherwise. The new Title 21 encourages the mixing of residential and commercial uses. Currently, all residential districts allow outdoor animals, except R-3 and R-4. That seems pretty traditional to me. Our rural large lot development is in Rabbit Creek and the Hillside. And in Chugiak, Peters Creek, and Eklutna. In these places we raise dogs and horses or live next door to people that raise dogs and horses. Outdoor recreation just seems to go with our lifestyle here. Because we are a winter city by latitude, we have to protect those things from the elements that go with our form of outdoor recreation. Trying to limit accessory buildings by size, or determining whether they are primary or accessory by size is ludicrous. The adequate housing size for a Shire is different than that of a miniature horse. Will a pig or a llama require more or less shelter than a goat? I don’t know, but I bet Animal control does. Staff’s argument is false logic. We have limitations and existing Code to correct any perceived problem. Lack of enforcement is the real issue. We don’t need more law, we need enforcement of what we have. Regarding non-traditional uses in residential areas…one can assume that a boarding facility or stable or training center could get so large that it might impact neighbors. But then, churches did the same thing. So did our elementary and high schools. No one is suggesting we oust them. And how many times have we wished that the local auto shop was close enough to walk home from? Or that we had a neighborhood service station. Or a snack shop? Or a recreation center? If the new 21 wants us to rely less on vehicles, then mixing commercial recreation and residential is the answer. Respectfully, Bobbi Wells LDA Sub-committee participant | |
| Chugiak Community Council, Merten Bangemann-Johnson, President | 4/25/2005 4:05:24 PM |
| At the monthly meeting of the Chugiak Community Council (Council), held on April 21, 2005, the Council discussed Case No. 2004-137. This case is an ordinance amending Title 21 for large domestic animals. The case is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 9, 2005. ------ The case was discussed; and, it is the Council’s understanding that a legal opinion was sought regarding the possibility of grandfathering-in existing large domestic animal facilities located in residential zones as permitted accessory structures and/or as conditional uses. The legal opinion obtained was that if existing facilities do not conform to the dimensional requirements of this proposed amended ordinance, then those existing facilities would not be grandfathered-in. ------ It is the Council’s belief that, were this to occur, it would make several existing facilities illegal creating undo hardship for the property owners. The Council maintains that such operations have come to exist over the years due to a lack of zoning flexibility to allow ownership and care of large domestic animals. Furthermore, the Council believes that there is adequate precedent with similarly enacted ordinances to allow grandfathering in this case; thus, the Council rejects the legal opinion. ------ The Council voted unanimously to request that the proposed ordinance amendment be further amended by adding a new subsection to clarify that existing facilities shall be grandfathered-in as of the effective date of the ordinance amendment. ------ If you have any questions, please contact Merten Bangemann-Johnson, Chugiak Community Council President, at 688-6575 or mertenbj@chugiakcouncil.org. ------ Sincerely, Linda Kovac, Secretary-Treasurer, Chugiak Community Council | |
| Jennifer Lundberg | 9/20/2004 2:48:02 PM |
| The zoning staff have only just begun to listen to the community but still do not hear us. There are serious implications to this ordinance that have not been fully developed or fleshed out and certainly have not been understood by those who will be affected. This ordinance should be tabled and a committee organised to fully address the issues. The portion of the ordinance that I most strongly object to is the number of horses allowed. The zoning enforcement group has no business counting horses. They do not have a good definition to determine number of animals and they have not made the case for tying the number of animals (which is the jurisdiction of Animal Control under waste management and cruelty)to the accessory building issue. The number of horses is not related to the size of the structures and should not fall under this ordinance. There are also serious fiscal implications to this ordinance. Equestrian activities are a large part of the local economy, both as direct and indirect inputs. The landowners with horses are only one facet of this income. There are those of us who chose to buy residential property without horses on the property when our option was to have a horse property in the Valley. That means I spend my wages in Anchorage and pay property taxes to Anchorage. There are people who don't even own a horse but have lessons, go on carriage rides, etc. All of these potential inputs to the community are in jeopardy with this ordinance. Please table the issue and let the community work together to find a fit that works for horse owners and non-horse owners alike. | |
| Chris Boylan | 9/20/2004 12:29:38 PM |
| If people do not like to live where horses and critters are, then why do they live there?? We have lived out here for the last seven years, now have a couple of horses ourselves, drafts even, and never had any problems with our neighbors with our horses or anyone elses horses. WE need these larger stalls/barns to house the horses properly, and for the hay storage, and tack that they need too. We are just begining our small business, but with this new ordinance we would have to go out of business before we were able to get started. WE have built everything ourselves, trying to provide a future for our children. So what do we tell them later on, that we can't because some people do not like to live near horses and such. How wrong is that, I'd rather have our neighbors out here than the ones we had in town(Anchorage) when we lived there. WE have so many mushers out here and other draft horses and still other horses, and no one has ever had any problems with these. We welcome these people and their "critters" too. So please listen P&Z, do not do this to us and everyone else. It is wrong, there are plenty of places where people can live that do not allow horses and "critters". We should not have to suffer, we have done nothing wrong. If you do not like to live where horses are, then find another place to live. | |
| Jim & Linda Perkins | 9/20/2004 11:25:17 AM |
| We are the owners of the property uphill from Laurie Berger. I have a question for Laurie, Why did you purchase a property next to horses if you did not want to live next to horses? We lived here long before you, and so did our horses. We actually had more horses when you first moved in. Laurie is misinformed when she states that we do not have the proper permits. We do have permits for every one of our buildings. If you wanted to live in a subdivision with covenants you should have bought a house somewhere else. Yes, there have been numerous complaints but just because someone complains does not mean they are right or their complaint is valid. We have a right to our privacy and bogus complaints are a waste of my tax dollars! We have put alot of sweat equity in to improving our piece of the American Dream not because we have to but because we take pride in our home, our property and love our horses. Next you will be trying to tell us how many kids we can have. How would you like it if we pryed into your business and called and complained about you? I am sure we could come up with something. But we are different folks. We mind our own business and you should too. To set the record straight we have a facilities license with animal control under Title 17 which is where the control and care of animals should be kept not zoning. In fact that application went through zoning. We have been breeding and selling miniature horses for 7 years, we do birthday parties and company picnics city wide. We have done Community School Programs and worked with the disabled and Senior Citizens just to name a few. We are not COMMERCIAL but private citizens that enjoy a rural lifestyle on the hillside and have worked our butts off to purchase and build our dream. It is discrimination to dictate to us how big our outbuildings can be. If we don't choose to build a big house but instead would rather have a nice indoor riding arena what business is it of yours. Current code says 30% lot coverage on R-6 property and we are in complete compliance. There are plenty of other places to live where this is not allowed. Futhermore, we do not board 25 to 30 horses. Some of our miniature horses are smaller than our dogs. The benefit of animals to the community and to raising our children can not be quantified. Every little girls dream is to own a horse. The saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is especially true here, what you consider unsightly we consider a dream come true. The current code does not limit numbers of horses nor should it. Title 17 addresses the care of animals and when you have more than 3 of any species you need a facilities license which is appropriate. We have a voluntary Conservation Plan with Anchorage Soil and Water Conservation District which I recommend for everyone even if you own just one horse. NRCS has the technical expertise to manage small parcels of land to prevent runoff problems to help you determine what to plant to protect your soils. This will ensure that you are not impacting your neighbors. But as in our case being good neighbors and doing the right things does not always make your neighbor happy. We have a difference in opinion on how we choose to live it is a lifestyle choice and last we checked we thought we still lived in America. We are beginning to wonder when government keeps infringing upon our private property rights instead of protecting them. Again, Laurie we were there first and it is just not right for you to dictate to us how many horses we can have or how big our buildings should be! | |
| Gerry Cox | 9/20/2004 11:07:32 AM |
| I don't know who reads these comments, I will hope it is the assembly members, planning department members and maybe even others with common sense... It is my observation that this issue has been raised as a result of complaints from neighbors of existing, established and/or new horse facilities in Anchorage. It has been coming for several years, and now we are faced with change and potentially new rules to live by. It will not affect most of us, but there are a few facilities that will be impacted, therefore several individuals associated with them. As a general rule, most horse "facilities" are casual private affairs, small barns and small holding pens and restricted to 2-4 horses per residence. Most of these private affairs may even board an extra horse or two, but primarily as a friendly gesture to soemone who needs a facility to keep their horse. There is no money to be made in the horse business, it is a form of recreation. Even the largest horse facilities in Alaska operate on the edge of econominc survival, it is the love of the activity NOT the economic reward that drives this industry! Very few horse owners have riding arenas on their property and in reality there are only a handful of covered or indoor facilities in the entire state of Alaska! It is my hope that the assembly can see that the few covered facilities that have been erected in recent years have been done at huge expense to the owner and as a result of a recognized need within the horse community, therefore some type of exemption must be allowed for these individuals to continue to operate to prevent finacial harm. Alaska has a 3-4 month window to ride horses in the open air, as opposed to the several similar cities the assembly attempted to compare Anchorage to, any other US city would have 7-8 months (April-October), we get May-September, then it is dark and cold. Anchorage needs these facilities and the assembly should not put unreasonable financial demands on them to continue to operate. However, I do agree that large boarding facilities must police themselves in a manner that does not cause friction with their neighbors. This means manure and smell primarily. Manure disposal in Anchorage is and has always been an expensive and logistical problem. It is my opinion that the city landfill should offer exemption to horse manure for several reasons: #1 Manure will actually compost and reclaim itself to dirt over a short period of time. #2 Horse manure actully encourages and accelerates decomposition at the city landfill and each cubic yard of manure is one less cubic yard of dirt the city has to buy for landfill coverage. #3 Horse manure, if left to dry, one cubic yard could weigh just a few dusty pounds, however, that same dry dusty cubic yard, allowed to absorb moisture could weigh a ton or more. #4 Allowing exemption for horse manure would promote and encourage manure removal from property and potentially spawn manure removal businesses as opposed to the existing cost inhibitive scenarios horse owners face today; weekly dumpsters charged by the ton, monthly truck & tractor rentals and dump fees, etc... or, composting on site.... Anchorage supports and enjoys several hundred horses within the city limits. Anchorage needs more inddor riding facilities. Anchorage should not put unreasonable demands on horse facility operators or restrict future potential horse facilities to be built within city limits. Horse facilities and horse owners must continue to promote harmony with our non-horse neighbors. | |
| Kim Ross | 9/20/2004 8:24:32 AM |
| Can someone from the Planning Department please show me where the public comments, prior to 7-30-04, are available for viewing online? I don't see them at this website and I know many people have already commented. Where are the public comments generated from the spring meeting at O'Malley's on the Green? Also, please point me to the document that reveals how the department gave consideration to each comment submitted, both verbal and written, in order to determine whether it was worthy of consideration, invalid, or not applicable. Thank you. Kim Ross 344-0333 | |
| Barbara Keene | 9/19/2004 10:48:16 PM |
| Anchorage, Alaska is a diverse community of people and activities. We have many wonderful amenities to include a variety of parks, clubs, multi-use trails, and other opportunities that all add to the quality of life in Anchorage. By placing restrictive ordinances on certain types of recreation or property use we violate the rights of some to please others. Surely there is still room in Anchorage for all. Horse owners and other large animal owners should be afforded the same rights to use their private property as any other individual. Too many times and in too many communities newcomers move in and want to change the ways of the locals. If we let this one pass without comment, what will be next? Maybe the activity I enjoy or maybe the one you enjoy? Beware "Big Brother" is after our rights once again. Thank you for allowing me to be involved in my government. | |
| William Smithies | 9/19/2004 10:02:59 PM |
| I have been informed that this has turned into an attempt to restrict the rights of citizens to own large animals in these discribed areas. This case all sounds like the begining of striping all of a land owners rights. The goverments job is not to restric or define the rights of a land owner these rights are already set in stone. A few people do not have the right to impose thier desires upon the rest of the comunity. Im sure that a little insight would only show that this is a political attempt to control ones neighbors, more than likley brought on by a few self centered individuals. If a person does not like the neighborhood they live in they do not have the right to impose thier wants upon thier comunity. For once the city representatives need to start telling whining citizens that they have no right to impose on someones lifestyle, and to suck it up! The question is where will this end? The next thing you know we will be told that we can only have 1 dog etc. There is alot of constitutional questions here and dictating what a land owner can or can not do, once started has no end untill a land owner has no rights and has to ask the gov. for permition to do anything first. And im sure that will only lead to having to buy more permits, but maby that is what some officials want. This should not be allowed to pass if it will restrict any of a land owners rights. | |
| Teresa Neeno | 9/19/2004 9:29:07 PM |
| We have lived in Anchorage for about 2 years now. We appreciate the diversity of people and activities available within the Municipality of Anchorage. The trail system- for bikes, walking, skiing and for horses is an amazingly wonderful thing that adds to the quality of life in Anchorage. If the horses were not allowed to reside within the Anchorage bowl, the number of people that would be able to appreciate the open spaces and trails would diminish greatly. My daughters are horsewomen wanna be's, if this ordinance is passed, it will be much more difficult to nurture that love of horses. The amount of land needed to house healthy happy horses is much smaller than the ordinance would suggest. I agree with other comments- the amount of land is less important than the care given the animals. The horses at the property in question are very well cared for, with owners that share their love of horses with others and go out of their way to be good neighbors. Please listen to the comments of the "horse people"- they are the experts in knowing what horses need. Thank you. | |
| Chris and Kim Ross | 9/19/2004 2:35:39 PM |
| Coming into the issue late, I have just devoted the past 2 days to my learning curve - reading, researching, talking and listening to people about the proposed large animal ordinance and its affect on our horse community and Anchorage, in general. After all this effort, I still haven't figured out the motivation for the proposed regulation change. Does anyone know? I don't believe it's complaint-driven. For others new to the proposal, the following is my "At-a-Glance" look at the issues to date: ANCHORAGE HORSE FACTS 1. Local farm properties and horses have historically been part of Anchorage since tent city days. 2. Horses provide unlimited economic, social, and recreational opportunities. 3. Economic benefits (millions of dollars) are derived from: a. Local feed sales supporting MatSu valley farmers and businesses b. Retail tack and clothing sales c. Commercial equipment sales, rentals and repair services d. Retail motor vehicle, truck and trailer sales, licenses and fees e. Lumber, fencing, plumbing, roofing, and irrigation supplies f. Boarding and training facilities g. ?Alaska Gold? composted manure sales via a municipal-funded recycling program h. Shipping and Transportation ? millions of pounds of cargo is imported to Alaska each year i. Commercial airline revenue generated through intra and interstate large animal shipping j. Veterinary and farrier services k. Events, state fairs, expositions, and competitions l. Tourism (national conferences and trade shows, trail rides, equestrian B&Bs) m. Other small businesses such as animal hauling, horse-drawn vehicles, saddleries, children?s party services, petting zoos, etc. n. Therapeutic riding programs for handicapped children and adults 4. Social benefits include: a. Healthy recreational activities and outdoor sports opportunities b. Legacy to future generations re: land stewardship and children?s responsible care of animals c. Therapeutic riding programs, including Special Olympics, for handicapped individuals 5. Increased zoning regulations have forced many horse activities to relocate to more rural areas. 6. Current law allows the keeping of an unlimited number of large animals. 7. Current law does not cover boarding of large animals, although MOA ?policy? forces commercial status if money is exchanged for boarding services. (This policy has not been made available to the public in written form) 8. The farm/horse community encourages historical horse-keeping activities to become legalized and protected. 9. Large animals in the Anchorage Bowl are not ?pastured? for feeding (grazing), but are fed via ?concentrated feeding operations.? Concentrated feeding operations do not require large parcels of open land which negates the MOA need for a ?one horse per half-acre? policy. Multiple horses may successfully be contained on limited sized parcels utilizing proactive, Best Management Practices 10. The farm/horse community supports a more restrictive position than that of the MOA planning department, i.e. protecting impact on adjacent properties, utilizing voluntary conservation plans, and encouraging proactive Best Management Practices based on factual and scientific research and information. Congratulations to all you tenacious property owners and horse lovers out there - you've done a great job slogging through this quagmire and educated yourselves in spite of our government system. I am amazed at the complexity of the issues and would like to see the MOA take the lead towards resolution to mutual satisfaction - it can be done. A simple reminder to MOA staff, commission, boards and representatives: listening is the most important service you can offer the public. THEY are the experts as they carry the experience, personal investment, history and first-hand knowledge of the subject. The offers from individuals to provide important education, working together through consensus-building and compromise are sincere. Let's roll up our sleeves, and after two years, get this off the table! Lastly, we are all indebted to those special people (you know who you are) who have devoted their precious time and energy to protecting our interests - for the benefit of our entire community. I thank you all. Kim Ross | |
| David Baldwin | 9/18/2004 2:29:55 PM |
| I don't own a horse, and haven't ridden one in perhaps 20 years. As one looking in on this as a non rider or owner (unbiased), I too have to question the driving force behind this move and it's goals. If it is a health issue, then deal directly with that issue with those few problem individuals. Can't be noise, as they don't howl like sled dogs or machinery. What does size of the operation or home have to do with it?? Alaska is one of those areas that spring and fall are long periods of time that you can't do much of anything like sled, rollerskate, swim, ski, snowmobile or motorcycle, etc, as it is between summer and winter activities. But even I can recognize that horse riding is one of those outdoor activities that you can enjoy year round! While it is something I don't seem to have time to get involved with, please don't limit or take away something that is one of the rare and wonderful outside activities that Alaskans can enjoy in coexistance with everyone around them. Don't let a couple rotten apples ruin it for the rest. | |
| Laurie Berger | 9/17/2004 11:41:19 AM |
| I think the ordinance is within reason. I live directly down hill from a property that boards, breeds and sells horses. Over the years this property owner has expanded without permits and several violations and complaints have never been closed out by MOA. I have had huge problems with runoff and the smell is overwhelming at times. I blame part of this on the Municipality as they have not followed through with the complaints or the violations and the property owner of course just continues his operation without compliance. I dont have a proplem with people owning and boarding there horses but there has to be a limit on the number of animals allowed on a given property. The owners next to me have at least 25 to 30 animals boarded. That many animals should have a much larger area to live in, its just not right. You build a barn or a equestrian facility , as this property owner has done, and you have just taken away more land from the animals and squeezed other structures againest the property lines which can be very unsightly! Every situation is different and a blanket ordinance may not be the answer but restrictions must be put in place to be fair to all property owners especially those of us that live in neighborhoods with realitively small lots compared to those of you with 5 to 10 acers. | |
| Diane Sullivan | 9/16/2004 12:09:37 PM |
| The question has been asked repeatedly: what is the purpose of this revision of the Large Animal Ordinance, and why does P&Z feel it is within their jurisdiction to take this on? Land use issues have been touted as the purpose behind the revision. Land use for who? Historically speaking, it was the hillside area south of Anchorage proper where dog and horse owners re-located a few decades ago in order to avoid the same issues that they are facing today. They moved 'out into the sticks' once....do they have to keep doing it in order to placate developers and bureaucrats? It has been said over and over and over and I will say it once again...this is not a matter for P&Z. It is an Animal Control matter and should remain so. There are many issues within this ordinance which P&Z seems to have overlooked when writing their revision. 1) basing a horse facilitiy size upon the residential structure regardless of lot size is ludicrous. P&Z fails to realize that there are many larger parcels of land within the Muni, particularly in the more rural areas. To write a blanket ordinance for the entire Municipality is unfair, and shows that P&Z has not done their homework, and has not taken all the unique situations that exist within the Muni into consideration. 2)banning horse facilities from industrial areas is also an 'across the board' decision that fails to take into consideration that it might be possible for the two entities to co-exist with a minimum of conflict. I have seen horse facilities next to railroad depots, pipeyards, shipping yards, lumber yards, etc. Seems to me there would likely be fewer issues of contention in an industrial area. The horses do get used to the noise and activities of industrial areas, no one in an industrial area is too concerned about aesthtics, and smells might not be an issue, as many industries produce odors of their own that are less than desirable. 3) perhaps P&Z is not as well versed on the statistics as they should be. The equine industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the country today, and Alaska is no exception. The equine population is comprised of almost all breeds, in varying and surprisingly large numbers. These 'backyard pets' comprise a significant part of the local economy. Perhaps you would like to check with local vets, farriers, tack shops, fencers, builders, trainers, realtors, advertisers, trailer dealerships, horse haulers, horse services and entertainment, etc. You might even like to check equine catalog sales to find that horse owners in Alask contribute a significant amount to the national economy. Please don't discount the contribution the large animal owners make to the local economy, and please don't regulate us out of the Municipality. | |
| Alison Hull | 9/8/2004 8:57:20 PM |
| I oppose the changes to this ordinance. While I don't own a horse, I live in an area that allows them. In fact, I live next door to a horse, and would rather have him as the neighbor than most people. Anchorage has so many unique and wonderful charms, among them the ability to keep large animals. I question why this was even proposed, unless it is more of the same real estate lobbying for the bland Stepford wife type subdivisions. I want you to leave the ordinance and the neighborhoods alone. Thanks | |
| Jennifer Lundberg | 8/30/2004 7:34:54 AM |
| 1. This is an enforcement issue and does not belong under P&Z. The primary concern has been waste management and this is not something that P&Z is equiped to deal with. This code will not be enforceable and is improperly restrictive. It is entirely possible to trash a property with one horse whereas someone else can manage 20 horses on the same piece of property. The fact that the health department sticks to its 4 horse number shows that the staff investigating the issue has not done their job to educate themselves into the different methods of horse care available and that the horse community has not done its job in educating the officials in how it is done, or can be done better, in Alaska. 2. P&Z does need to amend their codes and/or rules to allow horses and horse related commercial activity. The amendment should read something to the effect that these activities are permitted as long as the primary use of the property is residential and the secondary uses meet the requirements of the Animal Control sections. The secondary use cannot be a nuisance to the neighbors BUT any issues go through the Animal Control Board regarding odors, waste, etc. 3. On a positive notes, this version is much more readable and clear than the first one we saw several months ago. Unfortunately this is the wrong forum to deal with the issue. | |
| Mary Kaye Hession | 8/25/2004 1:34:07 PM |
| I'm frustrated that I can't find the current version of the muni's proposed large domestic animal facilities ordinance online. I wanted to check whether public comments at the planning workshop at O'Malley's on the Green earlier this summer had caused any improvement. I fear that they haven't and that the proposal still contains absurdities such as basing the size of permitted horse facilities on the size of the owner's house, or counting the square footage of arenas and pastures against the allowable limit--instead of encouraging such amenities, which provide valuable open space. Some people (real estate developers?) may dream of converting all of Anchorage's larger lots into condos, but most of us don't share that dream, and city officials shouldn't buy into it. Many people buy larger lots specifically so that they can keep their horses at home. Others (myself included) choose to stable their horses at large boarding facilities. The middle alternative is to use small private barns with two or three other horse owners, so that their horses--social animals--have company and there's always somebody available for hay deliveries, early-morning feeding, etc. All of these alternatives should remain available in Anchorage, with no unreasonable burdens imposed by city officials. | |
| Jon Nauman | 8/25/2004 6:59:28 AM |
| The Horse Carriage Co. has been operating in downtown Anchorage for 21 years and has been offering sleigh and hay rides for over 25 years. We have operating from our persent location for the past 14 years on property that has had boarding horses for over 25 years. Has the current purposed ordiance is written it would put our business out of business. Contrary to what many people may think our business is a business of love and the only thing that makes it possible for us to stay in operation is boarding horses, it helps pay the hay bill. Over the years many people have included what we offer as part of their families tradition and indeed we have had families that have ridden with us every year for 25 years. Inaddition we have the second generation riding with us now, having done their wedding purposal, wedding, anniversaries and now their kids are getting married. This ordiance needs to be applied differently on a case by case basis on each individual property, taking into account number of years of operation, good to the community and to Anchorage. The vary nature of our business has us operating at extended hours of the day and night. Currently we have 7.5 acres in which we keep our six draft horses and up to 8 boarders. There are many large animal owners in our basically rural neighborhood. There needs to provisions made for long time operations, taking into consideration if a owner has a conservation plan, record of past care of animals and past record of operation. If the intend of the Municipality of Anchorage is to put small business operators out of business that is one thing. As a small business operator I have work hard, many times nearly 24 hours a day, to have clean operation,with a good representation that hopefully can continue to offer a unique experience within the boundaries of Anchorage. | |
| Rosa Meehan | 8/24/2004 4:17:11 PM |
| I am concerned about the potential impact of the ordinance as proposed on the values and lifestyles of our municipality. The proximity of open space within the municipality and adjacent parklands and wild areas are unique and help define Anchorage as a desirable place to live and work. The ability to recreate in and enjoy these areas is a key aspect of our northern lifestyle - and that recreation and enjoyment has included the ability to keep and maintain horses within the Anchorage Bowl. The commercial establishments such as M-D; Diamond H; and Huffman Horse Center as well as private stables have provided enjoyment and educational opportunities for innumerable people over the years. Maintenance of these opportunities is important to keeping the diverse outdoor opportunities so many of us enjoy. I believe it is also important to maintain diverse lifestyle opportunities within the municipality. Alaska is often described as the last frontier and the ordinance as proposed limits opportunities and appears to direct development towards homogenous styled neighborhoods. I recommend the ordinance as proposed be denied and any future changes be developed with the goal of maintaining the opportunity for individuals to keep horses on small properties as well and continue to support the commercial establishments. | |
| Jane Tibbetts | 8/24/2004 3:02:55 PM |
| I am opposed to the rewriting of Title 21. I've lived in Anchorage for 30 years. I've been fortunate enough to have ridden the trails here in Anchorage with my horse, K-II, for 13 years. He is boarded now at Diamond H Ranch off O'Malley Road, along with 50 other horses at that stable. Prior to K-II living at D-H, he was boarded at the Six-Bar-E-Ranch off Totem Road, and prior to that, at the F-J Ranch off Abbott Road. He's also participated in clinics at Eaton Equestrian Center off Birch Road. These are all stables that have been in Anchorage for 20-30 years or more. What I see happening in Anchorage is that as a community our values are changing. The MOA seems to listen and act upon what real estate developers want, which is more land to build more homes/condos. Large parcels of land are in the way. There seems to be a trend of bulldozing natural vegetation to make way for expensive homes with no acreage accompanying them, or to build zero-lot line homes/condos with no acreage. Greed and $$$ are at the heart of this issue of rewriting Title 21. Anchorage is not the city I once felt proud of and comfortable in. If Title 21 is rewritten and the horse community is impacted detrimentally, it will be a tremendous loss for many of us. No one seems to be listening to horse owners and horse property owners on this issue. And that is what is most disappointing. LISTEN PLEASE, AND BE WILLING TO WORK WITH BOTH EQUESTRIANS AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY. I fear that Anchorage's values are being changed by perhaps people who come and visit or stay in our community for a short while, and then move on. Listen to the citizens of Anchorage who have been through more than one boom and bust, and who want to remain here and continue to call this city home. | |
| Quinton and Nancy Mitchell | 8/23/2004 10:32:00 PM |
| Will this ordinance, with it's proposed changes, benefit a select group?...Sure seems like it will.... Seems like the folks who build multi-family units and developers are the ones who are pushing the city officials to make it increasingly difficult for private citizens to own large animals on private property. They must be determined to push restrictions to run the large animals out of Anchorage and gain more property to throw up a few more condominiums or small houses that working people can barely afford. The MOA won't complain because with the additional structures/improvements more tax money will be realized. I have a real problem with people who buy property in an area zoned for horses and large animals and then complain about the animals and do everything to harass the person that bought the property for the purpose of having large animals. You know, the developer...."Let's call the city and get something done about those animals...I am having trouble selling this property because some of the prospective buyers don't like animals...." Ponder these thoughts...Could this be the underlying reason for all of this? May be--not much building room left in Anchorage and the MOA needs your tax money. How many of those tax dollars actually benefit the large animal owner? How about the people that have had their horses on their property for many years? Will they be given any consideration or will they just be forced to conform in some way or another? | |
| Laura O'Neal | 8/23/2004 5:07:44 PM |
| August 24, 2004 To Whom it May Concern, Each time I drive down Minnesota Blvd, the New Seward Highway or Muldoon Road and pass one of the new “Pastel Projects” going up, I’m disgusted by the tacky eyesores exploding all around me. The last open spaces in Anchorage have been devoured by duplexes shoved so close together you couldn’t even plant a garden in the shadows between them. It seems every last piece of property left in this town has multi-family dwellings fighting with each other to breathe. Beautiful, spacious acreage has become so rare and expensive that few can afford a piece big enough for a swing set and a sand box in their own back yard. The mass builders in this town have so voraciously gobbled up every last build-able piece of property, that there’s nothing left. Space, in Anchorage, has become a hot commodity thanks to the cookie cutter houses that have gone up by the hundreds this summer. On my side of town, where horses are still allowed, property is $60,000 an acre! You would be hard pressed to even find a flat five-acre parcel, and if you did, it would be a $300,000 piece of dirt before you even started building a house or a barn. So my question to you is this, why so “anti-space”? Haven’t property costs pretty much guaranteed there will be few new horse properties developed in Anchorage? This new ordinance will not only ensure very few will ever be able to build a barn on their land, but it will eventually push all horses out of Anchorage as old horse properties are sold, sub-divided and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s set to smother anyone’s dreams of retiring in a small home with acres of open space for their horses. Is this scene so much more revolting to you than those hideously ugly Dr. Seuss houses suffocating each other along every major thorough fare in town? Having open space on my property is not only a luxury, but it’s my choice! My arena and paddocks provide soothing space! How can it be okay to build fifty homes in a swamp, one right on top of the next, and then deny me the right to have open space in my own backyard? Open space is an absolute necessity if you own horses. Turn-out space, riding space, living space. Your ordinance should encourage owners to provide more space for their horses, not less. By including arenas, paddocks and turn-out areas in your square footage minimums, you are doing just the opposite. Require space, don’t penalize for it. Each of my horses has almost 600 square feet to itself including covered shelter as well as outdoor room to stretch and play. You would make me take that space away? Why, because I choose to live in a small home? And my riding arena is the envy of many, surrounded by towering trees and filled with $3000 of the best sand money can buy. Again, my spacious arena is now in jeopardy because of the square footage of my house? Horses need space. People, for Pete’s sake, need space. This ordinance shouldn’t be encouraging people to remove it. Under your ordinance, if I have a little home on two acres, I can have a little barn with little paddocks, but an arena to exercise ol’ Buddy. No way! The city doesn’t encourage THAT sort of behavior! If fair is fair, I should get to count the square footage of my fenced back yard as part of my dwelling space. And another point. The word commercial means “commercial.” Look it up. It has to do with commerce and profit. It has nothing to do with numbers. Four ducks don’t become pigs just because you have five of them. Private ownership of horses is not a commercial venture until money changes hands. If I have six children and I want to have six horses on my five acres, that doesn’t make me a commercial large animal facility, it makes a big family that loves horses. Don’t manipulate the English language to skew reality. I have sadly watched the steady decline of young people’s self worth and compassion for others during the last fifteen years that I’ve taught in the Anchorage School District. Children raised around animals learn responsibility, empathy and a strong work ethic. All of these are sorely lacking in our world today, even among adults. Don’t make it impossible for those of us with horses to share and instill these qualities in our own children. I’ve worked long and hard to build and maintain the integrity of my property. I have a $400,000 piece of paradise and it takes three jobs between my husband and me to keep it. My neighbors respect and enjoy the presence of my horses and often stop by just to watch my children ride. Don’t amputate the entire horse world because of a few irresponsible horse owners. If the horse is respected enough to pay tribute to a fallen President, it is certainly good enough for this little town. Please don’t push us out. Sincerely, ____________________ Laura Fitzgerald O’Neal | |
| Robin Smith | 8/23/2004 4:35:30 PM |
| I have had horses in Anchorage over 30 years and have had to board them the whole time and the places that we have to board are getting pretty old so we need some new stables and nicer places to keep our horses. The handicapped program cant find anywhere to go because you wont let them start a new stable thats not right. I red some of the other comments and the one from Gary Cox is just not right horses have been on the hillside for over 40 years and they have made all the trails and places that the mountian bikers ride people have forgettin that. The part about stables not being able to make money is just bull you can make a good living at the horse businsess. We need to keep the horses in Anchorage there are more horses in Anch. then in the valley I bet you didnt know that. Horses on the hillside are not hurting anyone and the people that move up into horse zoned areas and complain then should move to another place. The horse owners that ride on the trailes and roads are very curtious and kind to everyone they arent going to go where they arent wanted. All the people that are complaining need to just get a grip and except that there are horses on the hillside and they are not going anywhere. The zoining board needs to allow us to start a new stable it would open up more jobs and taxes and places where the horse people can ride and keep there horses that would keep them in a more central location like Huffman and Dimond H they are nice stables. But they are allways full and hard to get into so we need another place. If you kick out all the horses then you will chase out over have of the people in Anchorage I dont think that is what you want to do. You need to ask the horse people not the horse haters what we need. Horses are part of Anch. dont get rid off them. What about all the kids that have horses are you going to tell them that they cant have one then they will be out on the streets doing what ever they want and thats not good horses are a good after school program they teach caring, confedence, animal care, and happyness thats hard to do with no horses isnt it. Horses arent just something to ride they are a pet that is part of the family. I had my last horse for 25 years and he was part of my family he was 29 when he had his hart attack and that was the hardest thing I ever went through kids need the companionship and love and caring that they offer so they can be the best that they can be to get rid off the horses is like getting rid of food or living would you get rid of your family dog because the person next door decided that they dont like dogs I dont think so I wouldnt. You need to think again about the new laws and make it better for all of us. Thanks Robin Smith | |
| Jerry and Rita Olson | 8/23/2004 4:32:45 PM |
| I cannot believe this is an issue. Don't we have rights as land owners. If we choose to have horses and they are well cared for (as most of the Anchorage "backyard horses" are) Why is this even on the table. If a few neighbors are complaining, then they need to move to a area that doesn't allow horses (there are plenty around) Most of the horse properties I have seen in Anchorage are very clean and well cared for. In the end, the victim will be the horses that will need to be removed from properties that are not in compliance. I think if you have a reasonable size CLEAN facility, lets CREATE ZONING TO HELP OUR HORSE COMMUNITY. I live in a house that had the right taken away. Horses were there before our house was built (1/4 acre), now zoning changed NO HORSES ALLOWED. They will slowly change from 1-2 horses to NO HORSES. Don't let this happen, and don't under estimate the the equine community, the numbers are growing each year. I board my horses at this time, but have been searching for property to accommodate our interest. Don't take away that right. | |
| Lori Hackenberger | 8/23/2004 2:44:49 PM |
| What happened to all of our comments and the time we took to voice our opinions and suggestions at prior meetings? This is right back to where it started. Is anybody down there listening to the Equestrian folks or are you hoping we go away so you can pass this ordinance without us knowing. I had the pleasure (not) of working with the Municipality on the leasing of Sec 16 to the Anchorage Horse Council and what came out on the ballot to the public was not at all what was discussed in the meetings .This was a total diservice to the horse community and was so poorly written by the Municipality no wonder it failed. Now the same method of operation is going on with this ordinance. I am opposed to this ordinance as written and look forward to voicing my opinion again | |
| Ann Newbury | 8/23/2004 2:42:02 PM |
| I find it hard to believe that the MOA does not understand the value of the horse economy to the city of Anchorage. Rich and poor alike have a common interest in horse facilities, trails, shows (for entertainment as well as developing skills within the equestrian community and introducing Alaska to the lower 48 as a source of equestrian talent) and the larger economic spin off from the housing of horses within our city. A well cared for horse can live in downtown Boston, LA, San Francisco but not Anchorage Alaska???? The horse comminity is an asset to Anchorage as it is; please do not put these silly limitations in place. | |
| Gerry Cox | 8/23/2004 12:24:55 PM |
| I recall a line in a book I read one time (Atlas Shrugged), the storyline is based on government bureaucracy run amuck, and one bureaucrat victoriously announced "We finally did it! We have created so many rules that no one can go through a day without breaking one!" Another proud moment in the "Last Frontier"? What have we become? A license for this and a permit for that? Are goldfish next because we are passing them to eternity through our city sewer system? Horses are pets. I do not believe pets should be licensed either, dogs or cats, horses either. A responsible pet owner will however keep their animals inoculated and perhaps tagged or chipped, but the license is a money grab for city coffers. Is boarding horses a profitable venture? I don't think so! Hardly worth the cost of acquirering lincenses and permits to run a "home-board" facility. At best, small home board facilities are operated to accomodate friends and those who don't have a place to keep a horse. "Earnings" must be laughable! A large facility is another story, but even so, horrific effort and expense goes into caring for a horse. Home facilities environmental impacts are minimal. As previosuly stated (Linda Boggs), what could the difference be for having a large garden shed, hobby workshop, a barn or a large fenced yard, wheather horses are present or not. The ONLY difference is the presence of the horse! My neighbors have a huge fenced in soccer field in there yard, should they be taxed or restriced or required to acquire a permit or license if they have team practices there and the team donates money and/or efforts to keep this huge grass area manicured and cared for? As previously stated (Thomas OGrady) "receiving payment in kind". Big brother should concetrate on more important issues. The big boarding facilities should continue to take efforts to be good neighbors and NEW boarding facilites should take extra steps to keep their neighbors satisfied so they are welcomed. If we allow for more licenses and more permits to be required for more and more activities, we open the door for more and more government employees keeping track of more and more of US. Soon enough we will require one bureaucrat for each citizen. Who is interested in that? I heard Ross Perot (ex-Presidential candidate)say there were more bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture than there are farmers in America! Is this where Anchorage is going? I say let common sense and self policing be your guide. I also encourage all animal owners to keep the peace in your neighborhoods. | |
| Linda Boggs | 8/23/2004 11:16:34 AM |
| There are many areas of this proposed ordinance that seem to be contrary to community comments that come from those other than in the horse community. My main concern comes from limiting the amount of room on a lot that can be devoted to animals. 1)Using the size of ones house as the standard blatenly descriminates agains those who for whatever reason, be it: family size, economic status, or personal values, don't need or choose to have a giant house. You might as well base it on number of TV's owned or favorite breakfast cereal. What's wrong with the 30% standards that are in place now? 2)Why not work with the Fire wise folks? Since much of Anchorage's horse property lies in areas that are at risk for wild fires, shouldn't you be encoraging folks to let their animals graze down potential fire fuel in the form of grasses and underbrush? Areas that are devoted to animals make great fire breaks and improve the safety of the neighborhood. The Fire Department has already voice thier desire to be able to use my arena for helicopter evacuation of the area if it is ever required, but under your new ordinance it would be illegal. 3)To call an arena or paddock a structure also seems like a pretty arbitrary call. How can you do that and not treat a fenced area around a house or a garden the same way? 4)At a meeting that was held at the planning offices several months ago, the only comments that came from "anti-horse" people had to do with congestion on trails and roads. If you take away the ability for a person to have a riding area on thier own property, which this draft does, you are going to force even more horses onto the roads and trail systems and creat even more conflict. 5) Don't underestimate or penalize the number of folks that have extensive facilities for their private horses - that is large paddocks and arenas - what's wrong with taking a hobby seriously and creating a healthy environment for your horses as long as you are not impacting your neighbors? Public riding facilities are limited and seasonal for the most part, and hauling a horse trailer on ice and snow is not really a safe activity. All in all I feel that this whole proposal is very ill conceived. A few months ago, many horse owners attended a meeting held on the Hillside, and attended by members of the Assembly, Animal Control and other muni offices. The draft that they proposeded seemed to address many of the concerns in a far more rational way, and virtually all in attendence were supportive of the new draft. However in looking at this version I seen none of the elements of the draft that was discussed at that meeting. What happened to public process. Why don't you just tell us what you're trying to accomplish - truthfully - and let us (the horse and animal community) help you come up with ways to do it that make sense! | |
| Thomas O'Grady | 8/23/2004 11:08:40 AM |
| I believe that the proposed ordinance is quite reasonable for the most part. There are numerous comments from horse owners that would make you think that the ordinance was designed to penalize the people with one or two horses in their back yard. If that were the whole issue, then the ordinance would be overkill. The problem is that many, if not most, of the commenters are actually running commercial operations in residential neighborhoods. Every establishment that receives payment for services, including "in-kind" payment, whether for boarding animals, or for training animals, or renting out animals, should be classified as a Permitted Use and require public notice and hearings before being allowed in a residential neighborhood. The requirements in this ordinance are quite reasonable as a minimum for those establishments. | |
| Julia/Ben Milam | 8/23/2004 10:58:35 AM |
| Even that we do not reside in Anchorage, it is important for this town to keep the old tradition that has been established years ago, and to incorporate the equine population. Anchorage is starting to look more like LA. or Chicago. This is Alaska, and from day one the horses and dogs are a part of Alaska living, just because new comers from the lower 48 want to change everything to resemble the place they left, it is not necessary for this town to cater to their whim. Leave Anchorage and the rest of the state to be ALASKA. let people move, not the established Alaskans. Thank you for listening.?!!! | |
| Loretta Andress | 8/23/2004 10:35:51 AM |
| I do not agree with the revision of Title 21 as it stands. It would appear that the obvious result and purpose is to make horse ownership difficult enough that horses will be driven out of Anchorage, leaving more room for "industry." London, New York, many large cities manage to have horse facilities in the heart of town. Why can't Anchorage? Horses and trails greatly enhance quality of life here. | |
| Theresa Allen | 8/23/2004 10:29:37 AM |
| I oppose the re-writing of Title 21. As Diane Sullivan and others have stated the horse community is more than willing to assist with fair and objective reconstruction of T. 21. I do not understand what the real problem is that has started the reconstruction in the first place. Is there a problem that needs to be fixed or is just the non-horse community complaining again?Why not put the efforts into assisting abused and neglated animals of all sizes? And as Sandra McQueen has stated other states have comfortably housed horses in congested areas and made it work. What not involve the horse community into planning a program that would work for all? There is no doubt that everyone would be happy. It seems the dog sled community is also having similiar issues in Birchwood. When folks are looking to purchase around these areas they should be taking into consideration if they can live with the neighbors instead of purchasing and then trying take our recreational fun/hobby away from us. I work hard to keep my property and horses cared for and most of us in the horse community are like me. I ask for feedback from my neighbors so that I can do my best to keep us all happy. | |
| Sandra L. and Bert McQueen | 8/23/2004 9:28:18 AM |
| Reference 2004-137 What is the purpose of the proposed restrictions? Are there specific problems driving this proposal or are we acting on something that may or may not materialize? I have heard there is a concern for wells, are there actual cases in existence where a documented problem has occured? Why is there a need to limit the number of horses on private property? In the municipality we do not use our land to produce food for our animals. We practice urban horsekeeping in contrast to rural areas where animals need to be supported by the land. The way we provide for our animals allows us to comfortably house them without need for unnecessary limitations. Manure removal is a reasonable objective that should alleviate contamination concerns. It would seem appropriate for the Municipality to support the horse communities’ efforts in this endeavor by encouraging land fill use that is convenient and affordable. Our animals manure is a biodegradable material that can be useful in compost. Can the Municipality assist the horse community in the development of a program to utilize a percentage of the waste to create compost? What is the goal of limiting the amount of property the owner can use for horse structures. The current proposed language creates an unfair elitist system determining permissible square footage based on dimensions of individual homes. The inequity is obvious and the language should be deleted. Horse paddocks, riding rings or uncovered arena areas are not building structures. To count them in the restrictions does not seem to have a reasonable purpose. Residents currently housing horses that are not creating a hazard should be allowed grandfather rights. Development of land near established horse properties should have responsibility to consider those facilities when determining placement of utilities. Many horse owners have more than five animals without being commercial. Waste removal remedies negate the need to impose this limitation. Where there are issues there are solutions. If the assembly feels the need to level restrictions on horsekeepers there should be clear justification for each limitation. Problem issues that have satisfactory solutions should not result in legislated limitations. Horsekeeping is accomplished very effectively in many urban areas throughout our entire country. California comfortably houses horses in some of their most congested areas. Practical solutions are implemented with very successful results. Horses no longer require large amounts of land to sustain them. Their waste can be managed through cooperative development of effective programs. Our horses support many business’s in the municipality and we add to the diversity of Anchorage sports enthusiasts. We are good neighbors who have been here from this cities’ beginning. As a horse owner I will work for cooperative solutions to legitimate concerns with a sincere desire to accomplish and maintain the current peaceful coexistance I enjoy. I ask you to make any governmental interference as minimal as possible. Sandra and Bert McQueen Horse Owner and Horse Property Owner | |
| Kelli Madlock | 8/23/2004 8:52:27 AM |
| I do not agree with title 21 as it stands. My comments are the same as Bernie Willis, what is the problem you are trying to fix here? To remove the back yard horse, or few stables we have in this town would be detrimental to our horse community and Alaska for state in which it is. There are very few areas in town that are segregated for large animals. If new residents are offended by horse smell, then I would recommend they find their housing else were! | |
| judi ramage | 8/22/2004 11:01:52 PM |
| once again we have the ignorant trying to make rules for the community and they have no idea what they are talking about...i fail to see what platting and zoning has to do with this situation...there are over 4000 horses in the municipality of anchorage and vicinity....most of them are in our backyards....the large majority of which are well cared for and cause no problems to their neighbors....what is the problem this ordinance is trying to address? why are the board members trying to force something on tax-paying citizens and ignoring the input of the of the community? | |
| Marlene Fulton | 8/17/2004 9:27:00 AM |
| I am normally a quiet in the back ground kind of person. But, this ordinance has fired me up as well as many other horse owners in this city. The new proposal for number of horses per acre etc should not be the real issue.....let's look at how they are cared for! You can have 20 horses on 2 acres and have a clean facility with healthy happy animals or 1 horse that is neglected! Responsible horse owners love their animals and they recieve the best of care. If you have a problem with neglected horses contact animal control...don't penalize the rest of the community. The other issue is where am I going to board my horse when you make it illegal at my current facility? There isn't one facility in town that meets the new proposed requirements...Is the municipality going into the horse business? The delima you are creating is unnecessary. As I said I am not eloquent in my writing but I will oppose the current writing of this bill. I always vote and pay taxes. | |
| Mary Shields | 8/15/2004 9:19:55 PM |
| I'm concerned with this suggested "large animal" ordinance. As it pertains to my situation, I can only see that this revision would limit the availability of boarding in this town. Do you folks realize the number of horses (let alone llamas, pigs, cows, goats, etc.) that reside in the Anchorage Bowl? Finding board for one's horse in town is difficult, at best. And what does this mean to programs such as 4H, Rainbow Connection Therepudic Riding, etc, where the animals used in these programs are housed on private property? Is the Municipality planning to build an affordable boarding facility so that those of us that this ordinance displace can bring our horses? And, when did it become Zoning's jurisdiction to dictate the number of animals housed on a property? Perhaps, folks from the "large animal" community could be invited to help draft this ordinance. | |
| Diane Sullivan | 8/13/2004 8:43:39 AM |
| It appears to me that although the equestrian/large animal owners have turned up in large numbers for public meetings and/or workshops, we are not being heard. I also wonder if Platting and Zoning has done research regarding other areas of the nation where large animals co-exist within small areas of large cities? I have seen this occurance with my own eyes, and feel that if we work together for a re-vision of Title 21 that helps to meet everyone's needs a bit better, we can achieve this as well. Why put small businesses out of business unnecessarily? Why force large animal owners to abandon their favorite recreation/pastime? Large lots for large animals will not necessarily insure better care of these animals. The equestrian community stands ready and willing to help re-construct Title 21 as it pertains to large animal ownership in such a way that all parties concerned can co-exist in a reasonable manner. I sincerely hope that our collective will be heard. | |
| Bernie Willis | 8/10/2004 7:39:01 AM |
| What is the problem this proposed ordinace is addressing? Large animals don't make much noise. They don't usually bite like dogs. Most of them eat vegetable matter so don't pass on E coli bacteria to contaminate the water supply. So what is the real issue here? If perhaps,the issue is the smell of waste then that should be addressed with some kind of waste management plan. The number of animals on a property is not indicitive of the kind of management of the owners. One horse uncared for can be a larger mess than a dozen managed well. Muni credibility is what comes to mind when reading the proposed ordinance. What is the problem? | |
| Jon Nauman | 8/8/2004 9:58:21 PM |
| I wonder if MOA has considered the economic consequences of the purposed ordiance. Since small businesses supposely are the corner stone of this country and Alaska, how many small businesses will be affected? What is the economic effect if these businesses are closed down or made to come into compliance? Small business work hard day in and day out, not just 9 to 5. They don't have a pay check they can depend on, or medical insurance; but they contribute to the community in which they live in. It seems to me that every government purposely has to have done an economic analysis when a project is purposed. Has one be done for this proposal?. | |
| Stacey Dean | 7/30/2004 8:46:27 AM |
| I have seen horses on some very small lots in Anchorage. I didn't see anywhere in this proposed amendment where they will handle existing lots that have large animals that no longer meet this requirements of the revised ordinance. I would like to know how the MOA is going to deal with this. Also the MOA has been terrible at tracking conditional use permits. So I would like to see a tracking system added to the ordinance if conditional permits are allowed. | |