Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 02.05.2004DRAFT LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 5, 2004 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Gerald Shay, Chairman Doug Poehls, City Rep. Ed Thurner, City Rep. Kate Stevenson, City Rep. Laurel Haggan, City Rep. Dick Fritzler, City Rep. Clarence Foos, County Rep. Tom Roberms, County Rep. Others present: Cai Cumin, City Planner Cheryll Lurid, City Secretary Minutes of the January 8, 2004 meeting were approved as sent out. Chairman Gerald Shay recessed the Planning Board meeting and opened up the Zoning Commission for the public hearing. He went on to explain the ground roles for public hearings. Public Hearine on Land Use Variance -1707 E. Maryland -Willow Pedersen A land use variance has been requested at 1707 E. Maryland, zoned residential tracts, to allow 4 horses to be on the property. Residential Tract zoning restricts animals fi.om being allowed unless the land consists of 5 or more acres. PROPONENTS: Brad Arndorfer, lawyer representing Willow Pedersen, spoke. Mr. Amdoffer distributed packets of information regarding the land use variance. Mr. Arndorfer explains that when Willow bought the property in January of 2002, because she had and trains horses, she wanted "horse" property. She went through a realtor and she had several horses on the property before she moved in. In September of 2002 she decided to sell the property. At that time the property was listed as "horse" property once again. Also around that time she was asked by a friend to store some of his horses on the property while he was in the process of moving from one property to another. The horses on the property now numbered 9. She was unaware, at the time that she was in violation of the subdivision covenants, until she received a letter from some &the neighbors. At that time she had Mr. Amdorfer look at the covenants and he verified to her that she could have only 4 horses. She then got rid of the extra horses. Unfortunately the neighbors took the complaint one step further and contacted Laurel City Planner, Cai Cumin and also a lawyer. When Cal received the complaint on the property he wrote a letter to Willow telling her she was in violation of zoning ordinances that did not allow horses on Residential Tract zoned property and giving her notice to remove the violation or be fined appropriately. Mr. Arndorfer feels that the neighbors do not understand the difference between covenants and zoning ordinances. The covenants were approved in approximately 1973. In 1978 the City of Laurel zoned the property Residential Tract. In 1996 the zoning regulations were amended somewhat. What Mr. Arndorfer has learned in talking with Cal Cumin is that there are no animals allowed in Residential Tract zoning unless the property consists of 5 acres or more. Even if it does consist of 5 acres or more there is only a small amount of animal units allowed. Mr. Amdorfer stated that High Point Subdivision covenants are in direct conflict with Laurel's zoning ordinances for Residential Tract zoning even though the subdivision was originally designed to allow horses by the subdividers. To his knowledge it hasn't been enforced, because there have noT been any complaints up until now. Mr. Arndorfer goes on to say that Willow's property is set up for horses. In reality though when property is sold all of the rules and regulations of the property have to be disclosed to ail people that look at the property. Mr. Arndoffer stated that Willow's recourse on this might be tO sue the realtors. He sent a letter to Sharon Boyd, Realtor, in regards to this issue. He received a letter back from Sharon's employer that' they try to work out a solution on this matter without having to go towards a lawsuit. Mr. Arndorfer and Willow agreed to try to do so and asked for suggestions from the realtor. One of the suggestions was to go for the land use variance so that Willow can sell the property for what it is worth without any monetary damage to her. The other option was to try to research the covenants and determine if covenants would take precedence over any zoning that the City of Laurel put into effect in 1978, and if the use could be a grand fathered use, per a determination of the Laurel City Attorney. The Laurel City Attorney's, Elk River Law Firm, researched the issue and wrote a letter stating that the zoning went into effect in 1978 and unless there had been a house and animals on the property continually from 1978 to the present, with no break longer than 30 days, then it cannot be a grand fathered use. So, Mr. Arndorfer went on to state, that Willow then applied for the land use variance. Mr. Arndoffer passed out some black and white pictures of the neighboring property (see attached). He went on to explain that there are many neighbors with animals, because the covenants allow animals. He does not think that Willow's property is going to change the atmosphere of the neighborhood. He goes on to say that until Cai Cumin's letter came forward to Willow she was unaware that she could not have animals, what he wishes to accomplish is a variance for nothing more than 4 horses, which is in conformance with the covenants. Willow's property loses a great deal of value without the ability to have horses, in conformance with the covenants. He requests that the variance be granted. Willow Pederson spoke. She just wants to sell her property the way that she thought that she bought it. Before she purchased the property it had sheep and horses on it. They arranged for her horses to be there before she even closed on the property and now she is having a hard time paying her mortgage. She noted that there were people in attendance tonight that have complained about her dogs barking. When she got the complaint about the dog she got rid of the dog. She just wants to be able to sell her property and move on. She went on to state that there are many animals in the neighborhood, all different types. She wishes not to have to pursue a Iawsuk towards the realtors she wants to solve this without doing that. All she asks is that she be granted a variance to allow 2 horses on the property. She also pointed out to the people in the audience that they too will have a hard time selling their property if 2 they have had any kinds of animals on the property, or a barn. She would like the board and audience to listen with open ears and minds when they review this variance. She thanked the board for their time. Warren Albrecht, Billings, Montana, spoke. He stated that his past credentials include being a lawyer and former state judge from North Dakota. He is a friend of Willow's. In his opinion Willow's property is in a quiet, rustic neighborhood and it was reasonable to assume Willow could have animals in the area. The property, in his opinion, is absent of any public nuisance, or safety issue and the board should remember that when making their decision. He is unsure of the motives behind the complaints made on Willow and her property but he feels it must be very personal. Janice Riddle, owner of lot 12, spoke. They have had horses since 1973 and she bought their acreage so they could have horses. She believes that many of the property owners in the area bought their lots so they could have animals. Some of the neighbors that have lived many years in the areas have had, at one time or another, animals. Rick Flannigan, 1336 E. Maryland, bought his property under the same presumption that it was an agricultural type horse property type of environment. He feels that if the variance is rejected it will affect the entire area and he doesn't want to lose that. He is hoping that this variance will lead to the rest of the area being able to have the same kind of consideration for animals. He would like to be able to keep the value of his property high. He knows of many other people in the area that feel the same way. Marissa Henke, 1702 E. Maryland, lives directly across from Willow. They purchased their house 1 month before Willow, with the idea that they could have animals. They do not presently have any animals, but enjoy watching the area wildlife and also Willow's horses. She and her husband both grew up in farm/ranch settings. They enjoy living in a rural environment and support Willow in what she is doing. Person residing at 1333 E. Maryland (cannot make out her name on the tape) doesn't have horses on her property but wishes to keep the opportunity to have them if she chooses to in the future. She isn't saying that everyone in the neighborhood has the correct number of horses, but they should all get together and agree on how many that they can each have. Annette Ault, 1707 E. Maryland, is Willow's tenant and has been so for 3 years. She is appalled at how badly Willow's neighbors have treated her since she moved onto the property. She feels that ifWillow's neighbors are Christians that they need to do some soul searching as to how they've treated Willow in the past. She goes on to say that she has helped Willow feed her horses. She feels that Willow has taken good care of her horses. She also would like to see the neighbors go and talk with Willow face to face, as a common courtesy, if there is an issue that needs to be solved, She went on to say that Willow is a wonderful person and she has tried to make it on her own and take care of her horses. Horses are what Willow is about. When she bought her property, at a premium price, she thought it was horse property. She requested that the board open up thek hearts and try to resolve this situation. Brad Arndorfer, submitted 4 lc:q:ters of support. Linda Wedel, Prudential Floberg Realtors, has listed the property for Willow. When Willow bought the property there was an existing barn on it. Since that time Willow has added some stall's. At the time that the extension of the stalls was built there was nothing sa/d by her neighbors, or the City of Laurel that she was not allowed to do so. Linda went on to state that she has worked with several neighbors in the subdivision, that have listed thek property with her, and they have all had the same 3 understanding that they can have horses in their subdivision. At this time there are several clients that are interested in purchasing~he property, if horses are allowed. She goes on to state that if you drive down E. Maryland you will see that many neighbors have animals in the subdivision and they do not know that it is illegal. OPPONENTS: Noel Kurkoski, 1704 Ridge Drive, stated that zoning regulations were passed so that they supersede covenants and the reasoning behind that is so that eventually the horses will be weeded out and it can become a true residential zone, as the City of Laurel planned. Mr. Kurkoski stated that if Willow was planning to sell her home she would probably want to fix it up a little bit. He passed out pictures showing his property and her property. He stated that it might bother some of the board members and some might, not be bothered by it. He contacted several realtors and got appraisals on his property and her property. He pointed out that he was surprised that even with the condition of her property it appraised more than Willow's. She has it listed for way more than it is worth and he feels that she is not able to sell it because of that reason and not that she cannot have horses on it. Mr. Kurkoski went on to review the black and white pictures that Willow submitted to the board. According to Mr. Kurkoski some of the pictures are correct, but most are not. There are horses in the area but only 4 lots have horses in the entire subdivision (see map Mr. Kurkoski submitted). He believes that this is residential ' property and that is why he and other neighbors have been raising a fuss. He and his family cannot enjoy backyard picnics because of the dust and stench from Willow's horses. He also stated that the value of his property has suffered because of Willow's property. Before Willow moved into the property he and his family could sleep with the window's open in the summer. But because of the stench and dust they had to install air conditioning so they could sleep, due to the heat. There are noisy diesel pickup trucks coming and going anywhere from 8:30 am to 11:00 pm at night, hauling horse trailers. Her dogs bark at the trailer traffic coming in and out and it wakes the whole neighborhood up. She piles manure up behind her barn, which causes smell and vermin, and she doesn't remove it very often. Mr. Kurkoski stated that when the wind blows it blows dust and smell into 3 major pieces of property; Thomas', Eckhardts and his. When the wind shifts, the other neighbors get the smell and dust. He goes on to say that if that feedlot/stoclcyard had of been there when he was looking at his property at 1704 Ridge Drive, he would of never purchased the property. He also suspects that if he were to try to sell his property now he probably would not be able to. He goes on to state that even though the covenants allow up to 4 horses in the subdivision the zoning ordinances do not, for a good reason. There is also no chickens allowed on the property and Willow was supposed to remove 4 chickens on November 4, 2003, but did not. He states that was 84 days ago. She is buying, selling, boarding and training horses, plus giving lessons which she is not supposed to be doing. He feels that if you allow her up to 4 horses that eventually she will bring in more and more. Mr. Kurkoski showed some ads that were in the Billings Outpost that state that Willow is selling various horse services. He goes on to say that her property is a good example of why this type of land use should not be allowed. He feels she is thumbing her nose at the property owners in the area, and questioned if the (Planning) board members like to live next door to his (Mr. Kurkoski's) yard or a stockyard? Gene Eckhardt, 1723 E. Maryland, stated that he lives right to the east of Willow Pedersen. He has lived there, in the same house, for 25 years. They were one of the first people that bought out in that subdivision. He opposes the application to allow 4 horses for the following reasons; the lots are residential; the lots are too small for 4 horses; the flies are drawn into their yards and are such a nuisance that they cannot enjoy sitting on their deck in their own yard; the dust, when she rides in her arena is so thick that he cannot sit outside; no businesses are allowed; the noise from the horse trailers 4 and traffic coming in and out all hours of the night is wrong because they all have a fight to live in a quiet neighborhood. He requests that the board does not grant the variance because at one time there were many horses in the area, but they have gradually disappeared as people have bulk homes. He goes on to state that at one time he counted 9 horses on Willow's property. They have called the sheriff's department on many occasions due to barldng dogs. They had to tape a letter onto her door when the dogs first started barking because she wouldn't come to the door to accept it. He requested, once again, that the board not grant the variance. Harold Branstetter, 1607 E. Maryland, stated that he has lived there with his wife for 27 years. He cannot use his back porch because of the flies, and dust and stench when she rides her horses around her arena. He doesn't understand why Willow's roommate stated that the neighbors treat her badly. He's never had any problems with any other neighbor since he has lived there, until Willow. His opinion is that the people that come in and out of her house are not friendly at all, and they come in and out at all hours of the day and night. He works during the day, so is not bothered at that time by the traffic, but at night they cannot enjoy sitting outside. He stated that if anyone is stepping on anyone's toes it is Willow and her friends. The people that lived on Willow's property before her had 2 horses, but they kept feed for them year round and cleaned up after them so it was never a problem. Willow's horses completely ate the field until it was just dirt and then proceeded to destroy his chain link fence in about 3 months. Willow replaced the posts with wooden posts and told him that they were planning to corral the entire property. Gradually the horses broke that fence down and then Willow put in an electric fence. He stated that he is allergic to horses and dust and has had to take allergy shots for it. He also stated that Willow did get rid of one of her dogs, but still has a dog that barks. Her dog also grabbed his dog and put a bad beating on him. Willow never did apologize for that incident and then it is stated that the neighbom are rude to her? He doesn't understand that. He wants the board to understand the whole picture and requested that this variance not be granted. PROPONENTS REBUTTAL: Brad Arndoffer stated that probably, in his opinion, the reason Willow is having trouble with the neighbom is because she doesn't just store horses. She bought the property because she trains horses and she uses her property to train horses. Apparently her training horses upset the neighbors and he suggested that it would have been nice if the neighbors would of come to Willow with their problems. He stated that Willow has tried to comply with every complaint that has been lodged against her. When there was a notice sent that she wasn't in compliance with the covenants she removed the extra horses. When she got the letter from the Laurel City Planner stating that she was in violation of zoning restrictions she got rid of all of the horses. Yes, there has been neighborhood conflict, but he asked that the board look at the overall picture, that being that if the neighbors are upset with Willow then the variance needs to be granted so she can get it sold. There seem to be quite a few people that do not want any animals out in the area, but then also some that do. He doesn't feel that granting this variance is going to affect that issue, that people in the subdivision need to address those themselves. He hopes the board can see there way forward to granting this variance. Deb Greenough spoke. He stated he is a good friend of Willows and that she wasn't boarding the extra horses, she was allowing lfim to store the horses for him while he was in the process of moving. He stated that she is a good trainer and those extra horses were his. He apologized for that but he and Willow were unaware they could not have horses on the property at that time. 5 Willow Pedersen spoke and wanted to make it clear that she only trained her own horses on her property. She was not running a business. There was a one month period that she had Deb Greenough's horses but at that time she was unaware that she could have horses on the property. Those horses were only there under 4 weeks. She has never taken money for training a horse on the property. She has given 4 riding lessons on the property. She trains other peoples horses and gives lessons only at other stables, not her own. If you looked at the surrounding property in the High Point Subdivision you would find there are people giving piano lessons, breeding horses and other businesses that take money. But she only gave 4 lessons that she took money for. She stated that she realizes now how many people she made angry. She was not in and out of her yard all hours of the night as her neighbors stated. She wishes those people would of come to her with those problems. She did get the letter that was left on her front door, but evidently it had blown offinto her buses and it was found 3 months later. No one ever came to her front door to talk about any problems. Her horses being at her property seemed to be fine when she was giving.the neighbors kids and grandkids rides on her horses. She loves kids and horses and they were always friendly during that time. Her place is not set up to be a training facility and there was never a business going on. The only time money exchanged was for 4 riding lessons she gave. She is sorry people seem to hate her for all the personal reasons they gave tonight and the best thing that could happen would be the board granting her the variance so she can sell her property. Diane Albrecht, Billings, spoke as a friend of Willow's. She is also a student of Willow's, but money never exchanged hands. Willow has given lessons to young people and she helped Willow give a horse camp (not on Willow's present properly) for 6-7 year olds once. When Willow bought the property at 1707 E. Maryland she paid a premium price for the property, probably too much, but she was excited about finally having a place of her own where she could train and ride her own horses. She knows that Willow does go to other arenas to do some training. She does not want to accuse anyone of anything. She pointed out that Willow's place might not look like anything to some people, but to others it does because she believes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Willow and her friends have built the arena with sweat and tears. Yes, she might have people coming in and out, but she doesn't think there is a law stating that people cannot have friends coming in and out of their own home. She is amazed at what Willow has done both to the inside and outside of her home all by herself with friends helping her. She now is hoping to move to Duck Creek so she can continue to train and give riding lessons to people. She bought that house with her own money, blood, sweat and tears and she cannot sell it now. She has to sell it because she cannot make her house payments and she suggests that we have all been there at one point of our lives. She goes on to say that there are a lot of people that will have to move their horses out. But, this hearing tonight is about Willow. She has visited the property in the summer time and she is very proud of what Willow has done. She hopes the board will give her the go ahead so she can sell the property and Willow can move on. She feels Willow deserves that much. She goes on to say she wonders why no one else with horses in that subdivision has gotten any complaints. Cai reminded the audience that this is a rebuttal for the proponents, not a time to open new issues. Jim Johnson, Ridge Drive, questioned why the board is only concerned about horses when many of the other covenants, such as modular homes being prohibited, haven't been addressed. He and his wife were told that they had to have a stick-built home on site many years ago and since that time there have been as many as 8-9 modular moved on. Ryan Barons, a friend of Willow's, stated that he has helped her build many of her fences and buildings and has sat in her backyard for a supper meal on many occasions. Her backyard was not dusty and fly infested as stated by the opponents. 6 The public hearing was closed at 8:05 pm. Discussion by board. Laurel Haggart questioned how this issue got so personal? It is a variance about a piece of property that the realtor didn't explain to the purchaser about covenants before selling. She stated that buyer's need to take responsibihty for understanding what they are spending their money on. She feels that this variance should not be considered on any of the personal issues that have been brought out tonight. Kate Stevenson questioned whether or not a variance applies only to the owner. She was always under the impression that it doesn't run with the land but with the property owner. Ca/stated that a land use variance is one that runs with the land. Dick Fritzler stated that this is not just one variance, it is a precedence setting variance for every lot within our jurisdiction. He thinks that the board needs to look at this issue with that in mind. Tom Robertus questioned the total amount of horses in the area? Mr. Kurkoski stated that there are 12 horses but none of them are within 300 feet of Willow Pedersen's property, but they are within High Point Subdivision. Willow Pedersen spoke in disagreement of that number, as there is a racehorse trainer out in that area. A gentleman in the audience (didn't identify self) stated that there are more horses and animals brought in during the spring and summer months. Ed Thurner wondered why letters of violation haven't been issued to all of those people that have horses within the area7 Laurel Haggar~ question Warren Albrecht whose responsibility it would be to tell the buyer about the covenants? Would it be the realtor*. Warren Albrecht stated that is not the issue before the board tonight and he didn't fee[ comfortable answering a question he had no background information on. Cai answered the question that Ed Thurner asked, about why no letters were issued to everyone in violation in the area. Cai stated that Laurel does not have a Code Enforcement Officer for outside of the city limits, so they work through zoning violations on a complaint only basis. Ed asked if he could put in a complaint? Cai stated that he could if he wanted to. Dick Fritzler added that the city can only react to complaints as they come up and they don't have the money or manpower to supervise all of the municipal codes. 7 Doug PoeMs stated that the issue is that the zoning and covenants are against each other. Because of that this board gets to decide on the issue and whether or not the ordinances supersede the covenants. Ed Thumer states that when you read covenants they always defer to the higher authority of the city. Cai clarified that the issues of covenants are not for the city to decide. The zoning ordinances have the first position, obviously: Dick Fr/tzler stated that his understandings of covenants are that if neighbors have a dispute over · covenants it is a civil matter that the neighbors have to resolve. The city cannot get involved. Clarence Foos asked Cal to explain the letter he sent to Willow to the board. Cai read his letter. (attached) Clarence questioned whether or not Cai would send a letter of violation to everyone in the area that has animals. Cai stated he would if he gets a complaint. Dick Fritzler referred to 17.12.031 of the zoning ordinance on animal units allowed when there is 5 acres or larger parcels within the Residential Tracts. If the board went by this ordinance then there are no animal units allowed on less than 5 acres. Warren Albrecht requested that he be able to address Laurel Haggart's question to him? The chairman allowed it. Mr. Albrecht stated that there is a possible action for negligence in any situation like this. But following that up, when he said that this is not the issue before the board, he would like to say that a variance is a commonly well-accepted thing that is given freely by boards. Commissions in situations like this apply it. Variances have been granted and then commissions do a long-term land use study so that they don't have to be bothered by single variances one at a time. Laurel stated that the board has to look at the issue by what's best for the community and she is sorry that it turned so personal. Cai recommended approval of the this variance to the City council limiting it to 2 horses on the site, on he'd like to make the basis of that recommendation to the fact that if this property is denied animal use it's being deprived a use that similar size lots in the immediate area have available to them. Cai went on to say that the council should discuss the other issues that have been brought up regarding other violations in the area. He would like to see an effort made to get together with the community regarding a zoning district that would allow animals in some areas. That, to him, would seem more beneficial than making more problems for residents by sending out letters of violations. But, he will do whatever the council asks him to do. Ed Thurner asked if Cai thought that if they didn't grant this variance they could defend it in court? 8 Cai stated that he lek hardship could be used as a defense issue. Ed Thurner suggested that individuals are responsible for looking into the usage of land before purchasing it, not necessarily the government. Cai stated that in his career he has never been involved in anything like this where there were 5 lawyers involved in one case. Ed Thurner asked ifa variance could be granted for a limited period? Cai stated that he feels he is pushing the issue by suggesting limiting itto 2 horses, but he is sticking to his recommendation. Clarence Foes questioned what would happen if the variance is granted for 2 horses, but more and more horses are added? Cai would recommend legal prosecution. Dick Fritzler is concerned with being put into the poskion of having to enforce a compromise to the municipal codes. He believes it would be a difficult task. Cai stated that it shouldn't be a big issue to enforce. The City Attorney can file a cloud on the title. Kate Stevenson asked Cal to explain the hardship. Cai stated that if your land has a peculiarity about it that allows you to take less than what a similar piece of land in the same area is provided, and the City restricts you by saying that's the standard you have to stick to regardless, that is a hardship. Cai went on to say that this hardship was not created by the applicant, the hardship is that there are quite a few lots that have horses on them and to deny the applicant the use of horses on this kind of request is a hardship issue. Kate questioned if an attorney could use that hardship issue as a defense? Cai stated that yes, although he is not an attorney, he believes it to be a hardship. Kate Stevenson questioned that if the entire subdivision wanted to get together and enforce all of the regulations or to change their covenants, would that be the only way they could handle that? Cai stated that he doesn't think that would be a good way to handle the situation. He thinks the Planning Board could direct him (Cai) to do some research on alternative zoning that would be more satisfactory for the neighborhood and then hold public hearings on the issue. Kate Stevenson stated that is the logical thing to do regarding this area because it is still considered a rural and agricultural area. Dick Fritzler stated that his understanding of the covenants is that the residents of that subdivision have the option of looking at the covenants and changing them. 9 Cai stated that the issue of covenants is not what is before this board to consider. Motion by Doug Poehls, to recommend approval of this variance with the restriction of limiting this property to 2 horses, seconded by Kate Stevenson. Dick Fritzler spoke and stated that this variance could set precedence and he would like the board to keep that in mind. Doug Poehls stated that he also understands that the board would be setting a precedence if they granted this variance, but because of the rural setting of this subdivision the board needs to start looking at a new category of zoning of residential/rural for the many outlying subdivisions. Cai questioned why Doug Poehls thinks we are setting precedence if we allow this variance? Doug Poehls said because we are alIow'mg a change in a specific zoning area of residential housing. And, that doesn't preclude us from allowing the next person that comes in asking for the same variance. Cai stated that if they are in the same circumstances as Willow Pedersen they could apply. Doug Poehls stated that we do need to look at adding a different zoning category. Kate Stevenson stated that the issue became a problem when it became an abuse of that lot. There are many people in the area that do, or would like to have, horses as more of pet than a business. But, if this area had never had horses in it no one would vote to allow the variance. The applicant would have to prove that they are under a hardship for whatever area they live in. She feels that the abuse caused the problems on this variance. Clarence Foos stated that originally when the covenants were made the proper~y owners were allowed to have horses. That is why they bought in the area. Now if we allow this variance, in his opinion, we are creating a big problem. The vote was called for. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Cai stated that the Growth Management Plan will be put on the agenda for the March meeting and be discussed. PUBLIC INPUT Mike Schweitzer stated that he is has read the draft of the GMP and thinks the plan is great, especially in light of the problem that was heard at tonight's meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 pm. 10 Respectfully submitted, Cheryll L~nd, Secretary 11 City Of Laurel 115 W, IST ST. PUB WORKS: 6284796 WATER OFC: 62g-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.O. BOX 10 FAX: 628-2241 La,.treL Montana 59044 PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 21, 2003 Willow Pedersen 1707 East Maryland Street Laurel, MT 59044 Dear Ms. Pedersen: The City of Laurel has zoning jurisdiction within one mile From its municipal limits. The area you live in is zoned Residential Tracts. This is a residential zone that does not allow animals. The zone also does not allow businesses (without approval) nor more than one dwelling unit per tract of lan& 1 believe you are in violation of all of these requirements, and you must correct the situation. Failure to comply may constitute a misdemeanor, successful prosecution of which can include a $500 fine and/or six months in jail. Each violation is independent and each day of non-compliance is an additional day of'violation. Cai Croton, AICP Planning Director cc: City Attorney City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer Equal Housing Opportunity PE:D[~RSgI~,g.I~N~-- P~~'~ Amdorfer Law Firm, P.C. BradL Amdorfer 2709 First Avenue North ~ P.O. Box 412 (406) 252-3911 /.~ 1/4,), Billings, Montana 59103 email: balawflrm@msn.com FAX (406) 252-3951 November 3, 2003 Kathy Keepers 1550 Poly Dr. Billings, MT 59102 Sharon Boyd 1925 Grand Ave., Suite #138 Billings, MT 59102 RE: Willow Pederson, 1707 E. Maryland Lane, Laurel, MT Dear Kathy mad Sharon: As you are aware from my phone conversations Ms. Pederson has been hit with some unbelievably awful news. She bought the above property because she has horses and wanted to buy a place to keep her horses. Her neighbors are now complaining that the property is not zoned for horses and there are numerous buildings and fences that are in violation of the covenants on the property. Enclosed I am sending copies of the correspondence from Cai Cummins, Randy Jacobson and myself concerning this property. This is a notice of claim and we anticipate you will need to notify your insurance carriers of this problem. I also need the names and address of the sellers of the property if you have them. They are obviously a part of this ongoing problem. Hopefully the correspondence gives sufficient, detail to understand this problem. Thank you for your attention to this request. PEDERSEN HEARiN~ page 3 ELK RIVER LAW OFFICE, P.L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Majel M. Russell P.O. Box 928 Sam S. Painter Office: (406) 259-8611 Billings; MT 59103-0928 Keith A. Molynem~x Facsimile: (406) 259-3251 3317 3~ Avenue North Jim Yellowtall ellu-iverlaw@elkriverlaw.cmn Billings, MT 59101 January 29, 2004 Mr. Lynn Grant Attorney at Law 1645 Parkbill Drive, Suite 6 Billings, Montana 59102 RE: Willow Pederson 1707 East Maryland Street, Laurel, Montana 59044 Dear Mr. Grant: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2004 in regard to the above-named property owner. Your letter was addressed to Keith Molyneaux, however, I represent the City in its civil matters, therefore, I am responding on the City's behalf. Any further correspondence should be addressed to me instead of Mr. Molynesux. After reviewing your letter, I conferred with the Planning Director regarding his October 21, 2003 letter. Based upon my investigation and research, it appears that a majority of your letter is correct. However, I must correct a couple inaccuracies that are crucial in this case. First, in my opinion, I believe you are correct, Ms. Pederson's use does constitute a prior non- colffomfing use under the applicable state and local zoning laws. Additionally, I believe you are correct, the local zoning ordinances do indeed comply with the applicable Montana case law and statutes regarding the continuance of non-conforming uses. The problem with your analysis begins with your allegation that the regulations set out in Sections 17.56.020 through 17.56.070, were adopted in August 1993. Frankly, this allegation is wrong. The date you cite is simply the date of the most recent revision(s). In fact, this code was adopted in 1978. Therefore, your 1993 date is an error. Second, although Ms. Pederson's use does indeed constitute a non-confonrdng use, I believe the right of continuing the nou-conforming use was extinguished through a long period of non-use or "Discontinuance" addressed under Section 17.56.070. The neighbors filing the complaint against Ms. Pederson's use are willing and able to provide written and/or oral evidence in fids regard. However, since an application for a variance has been filed, I see little value gathering such evidence until absolutely necessary. What I propose is that you stay your challenge until a decision on the variance request is rendered. Although I have no authority over the variance decision, it appears to me that more likely tlmn not, the variance should be approved which should remedy this situation amicably between the parties avoiding mmecessary fees and costs. If you disagree with my assessment of this matter, feel free to contact me. (x~ R~ctfully, .~.~ · cc: Brad Arnndorfer ~'~' Cai Cmnh~ PETIERSON and SCHOFIELD .A'ITORNEYS AT LAW .E.~,~m o ~ET~SO. ~.~ ~ ~-:~z-'--".= .... '. 'a =.^.r 1645 PARKHILL DRIVE, SUITE 6 BILLINGS, MONTANA j9102 PHONE: (40fi) 252-6679 - (888) 252-fi879 . F~:X: f406) 252-4919 Januau'26,2004 Kelth Molyneaux Deputy Laurel C in., Attorney 3317 3rd Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 Re: Willow Pedersen 1707 East Maryland Street Laure!, MT 59044 Dear Mr. Molyneaux: Thank you tbr providing tome a complete copy of Title 17 of the CiD' of Laurel ordinances regarding zoning. As [ indicated on the phone, our office represents Prudential Floberg Realtors. Prudential Floberg Realtors currently has Willoxv Pedersen'sproperty listed for sale. Several parties have expressed interest in purchasing this property from Ms. Pedersen. However, they have refrained from making offers due to the letter Ms. Pedersen received from Cai Cumin, Planning Director for the City of Laurel, dated October 2 I, 2003. I enclose for your review a copy of that letter as Exhibit 1. Ms. Pedersen's properS.' carries the following legal description: Lot 2 I, Block 5, of Highpoint Subdivision, according to the official plat on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Yellowstone County. Montana, under Document No. 877245. A copy of the Stewart Title commitment reflecting this legal description is attached as Exhibit 2. At the ti,ne of approval of this subdivision, the property was agricultural. Covenants and restrictions concerning use of this property were amended twice. I attach hereto as Exhibit 3 copies of the second amendments which were recorded October 11, PEDERSEN HF~NO psile 16 Keith Molyneaux JanuaL'y 26, 2004 Page 2 1973 in Yellowstone Count?' Clerk and Recorder's office, Book 1012, Page 980. Restrictions were placed with regard to agricultural animals allowed on the property"at paragraph 19 ol'the second amended restrictions. With regard to horses, there is a limit ot"four horses or cattle, or both, in any combination. The letter of Mr. Cumin dated October 2 l, 2003. advises Ms. Pedersen she is in violation of city residential zoning restrictions with regard to keeping of animals, particularly, Ms. Pedersen's horses. Montana case law is fairly clear with regard to non-conforming uses which were in existence prior to passage of municipal zoning ordinances. In ~?atts v. Helena (1968}. 151 Mont. 138, 439 P.2d 767, the Montana Supreme Court noted the general rule that non-conforming rises are exceptions to zoning restrictions, for those uses existing prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance. The right to continue the non-conforming use is passed to subsequent purchasers. No expansion of a 'non,conforming use is allowed absent permission within the zoning regulation itsel f, or by variance. A copy of the r~'arrs v. Helena case is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The right for continuation of non-conforming use is also statutority set forth at §76-2-208, M.C.A. In Alden v. Board of Zoning Commissioners (1974), 165 Mont. 364. 528 P.2d 1320, the Montana Supreme Court declined to enforce a zoning "grandfather clause" xvhich was not in compliance with this section. A copy of that case is attached as Exhibit 5. For discussion of the differences and interplay between non-conforming uses and "variances", your attention is directed Wheeler v. Armstrong (1972), 159 Mont. 392,498 P.2d 300. It appears the CiD' of Laurel zoning ordinances regarding non-conforming uses, lbund at chapter 17.56, is in compliance with Montana statutes. Specifically, Section 17.56.010 reads: Any lawful use of the land or buildings at the date of passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and located in the district in which it would not be permitted as a nex¥ use under the regulations of this chapter. is declared to be a non,contbm~ing use, and not in violation of this title at the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter; provided, however, a non-conforming use shall be subject to, and the owner shall comply ~vith the regulations set out in Sections 17.56.020 through Keith Molyneaux JanuaO' 26, 2004 Page 3 17.56.070 (prior code .~ 17.64.010 (part)). A qopy of this particular passage is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. The lower right hand comer of this chapter shows its adoption in August, 1993. It would appear that the use of the property by Ms, Pedersert for horses, indeed ail subdivision homeowners, is a non-conforming use allowed under Montana law. and under the Laurel zoning regulations. Therefore, the letter issued by Mr. Cumin on October 21, 2003. should not have been issued in regard to the keeping by Ms~ Pedersen of horses on this property. ]In response to this letter. Ms. Pedersen has removed her horses, and applied to the Laurel Ci~'/County Planning Board for a variance allowing her to keep up to tbur horses on the property. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 isa copy of the public notice with regard to her hearing scheduled for February 5, 2004. Based on Montana law, Ms. Pedersen should not be required to seek a variance for a permitted non-conforming use. It appears under the circumstances that the appropriate way to proceed in this matter is the issuance of a letter by Cal Cumin, superceding his letter of October 21, 2003, recognizing and approving the keeping of horses on this property as a non- conforming use. With the issuance of that letter, the variance request should be withdrawn and taken off tile agenda for punic hearing. The need for having such a written statement ii'om Mr. Cumin, which can be placed with the listing materials for this property, is so prospective purchasers are assured the keeping of horses is allowed. Willow Pedersen is represented in the zoning mafters by Mr. Brad Arndorfer. ESq. Mr. Arndorfer's address and telephone are as follows: Mr. Brad Arndorfer 2709 l~t Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 (406) 252-3911 I would greatly appreciate your corresponding both with myself av-d Mr. Arndorfer with regard to .','our review of these materials and whether proceeding in K. eith Molyneaux January 26, 2004 Page 4 this £ashion is agreeable. Thank you for your prompt review. Cordially, £MG/tms Enclosures cc. Don Floberg BradAmdorfer PEDERSEN HEARING p~e 19 1707 E. Maryland Lane Close In Horse Property PRICE: $175,900 TERMS: Cash, New Loan AGE: 1996 SQ. FOOTAGE: 1,008 Up, 1,008 Down LOT SIZE: 1.9 Acres TAXES: $931 SCHOOLS: GraffMiddle School, Laurel Itigh School MARI~ETING AGENT: LINDA WEDEL 238-7176 (O), 628-6540 (It), 855-6540 (12) As residexxts of Highpoint Subdivision, ~ve encourage the councel to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 E. Maryland. We are in favor of horses in our subdivision. CITY OF LAURa As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we encourage the councel to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 15. Maryland. We are in favor of horses in our subdivision. Dated: ,~-~- 0 ~Z Address: FEll - 5 2004 CITY OF LAUREL As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we enco4rage the councel to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 E. Mary]and. We are in favor of horses in our subdivision. Dated: ~'/ ~"] 0 ~ Address: CITY O~F LAUREL As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we encourage the councel to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 E. Maryland. We are in favor of horses in our subclivision. Dated: ~,, Address: signature: FEll- 5 20O4 CI'I'Y OF LAUREL CITY HALL ~b,~c ~or~' ~8~79~ City Of Laurel WATER' OFC: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.O. Box 10 F~ 628-2241 ~urel, Mont~a 59044 P~NG BO~D DEP~T~NT ~PLICATION FO~ The nna-~i~a~ o~er or agent of ~e foHo~g des~bed prope~ mquest~ a Zone From [no request to ch~e ~n~) Zone To iv~ce mauestl Zone 1. ~gE des~pfion of prope~: Lot 21, Block 5, ~ Po~t Sub~sion, ~ ~e ciW Of La~el, MT accor~g to ~e officiE plat on ~e Wi~ ~e Clerk ~ Remrd~ of Yellow,one Co~ 2. Gene~ ~fi~: Just east of~e ~el CiW llmlt~ on M~l~d L~e 3. ~oposed u~e: We ~e r~ues~g a v~ce ~m ~e zomg as "R~E ~acff ~ ~ow up to fo~ horses m be p~ced upon ~e prope~. The coven~t~ ~ow up to four horses upon ~e pmpe~. The en~ sub~sion con~ nmerous horses ~ accord~ce ~ ~e covets, but ~e ~mg i~ ~ co~ct ~ ~e coven~ts. We ~e r~ues~g what eye,one ~ders~ds ~e pe~saible ~ses to be. 4. Diner (s): W~ow Pedersen {reco~ed 1707 M~d L~e (ad~e~s) 406-628-6457 ~hone nmber) 5 . Agent (~): Brad L. ~doffer P.O. B~ 4i2, 2709 l~Ave.'N., Billings, ~ 59103 (ad~e~) {406) 252-391 ~ Chone nmber) 6. Coven~ts or d~d resections on prope~: Yesx No (ff yes, ~clude co~) I .understand that the filing fee accompanying this applicat/on is not refundable, that it pays part of the cost in processing, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a Zone Change/Land Use Variance. Also, that all the in/oma*ion presented is true and correct. PETITIONER MUST BE PETITION NO. FEE PAID .~/~'~,~5 . ' PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE '~ DATE 1707 E MARYLAND Tile FOLLOWING IS A PICTURE OF SAID PROPERTY IN CONSIDERATION: Grounds: · River rock path off deck to gate · Drive through gate for unloading and loading horses · 3 holding pens 3vith gates · Barn vfith 2 stalls, hay storage (3 ton loft), tack room and reinforced boards · Large riding area - ties are cemented 3' in groun~ and lug bolted in. Approximately I30 x 90. · 2 story chicken house · All fenced (back of property) As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we encourage the councel to gral~t the request to allow horses on 1707 E, Maryland. We are in favor of horses in our subdivision. __ CITY OF LAUREL As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we encourage the counceI to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 E. Maryland. We are in favor of horses in our subdivision. Dated: ,.-ff-~- 0 ~z' Address: FEB - 5 2004 CITY OF LAUREL As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we enco~rag~ the councel to gra~at the ceq~test to allow horses on 1707 E. Maryland. We are in favor horses in our st~bc~ivision. FEB - 5 2004 CITY oF LAUREL As residents of Highpoint Subdivision, we encourage the counceI to grant the request to allow horses on 1707 E. Maryland. We are in favor of horses in octr subdivision. Dated: ,~'~' Address: signature: FEEl- 5 2004 CITY OF LAUREL TI-YE FOLLOWING ARE PICTURES OF JUST A FEW OF THE PROPERTIES IN HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION A_ND IN CLOSE PROXI/VIITY TO 1707 E MAR~ LOT 020 BLOCK 005 (PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THE WEST), BACK OF HOUSE, SECOND DWELLI2qG, RABBIT DENS, ETC. LOT 13 BLOCK 1 (PROPERTY 3 HOUSES DOWN, ACROSS STREET), LAMA RANCH. LOT 12 BLOCK 1 (PROPERTY KITTY CORNER, CLOSE PROXIMITY, ACROSS STREET), PAINT HORSE BREEDERS, SEVERAL HORSES, LARGE LOT11 BLOCK 1 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTY ACROSS STREET, LESS THEN 200 FT FROM SAID PROPERTY. UTALIZED AS HORSE PASTURE. - LOT 8 BLOCK 1 HIGH POINT SUBDEV~SION (MORE PROPEKTY ACROSS STREET, LESS THEN 200 FT) UTALIZED HAY PASTURE. D~ BACKGROUND: LOT 9 BLOCK 1 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTY WITi-rfl'4 100 FT) CHIq~ ~ ~O. UP~ BARN, FENCED FOR HORSES. LOT 4 BLOCK 1 HIGH POINT SUBDE'VISION (PROPERTY JUST DOWN STREET) HORSES, BARNS, ROI.~D BAH~ FEEDERS, ETC. LOT 1 BLOCK 6 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION & LOT 1 BLOCK t HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTieS AT E~CE TO HIGH POINT SUBDE¥ISION WHERE MARYLAND MEETS YARD OFFICE RD.). MANY ttORSES; 20 OR MORE MAYBE? BARN WITH HAY LOFT, ETC. LOT 8 BLOCK 6 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTY 2 HOUSES DOWN ON SAIV[E SIDE) POLICE OFFICER AND I-HS HORSES LIXrE/LIVED HERE, HORSE BARN, SEPARATE PASTURES, ETC. LOT 22 BLOCK 5 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THE EAST) LARGE HORSE BARN OVER 800 SQ FT, CONTAJNS HAY AND TR. ACTOR AS TffESES PEOPLE OWNED A COUPLE HORSES NOT TOO LONG ' AGO. LOT 8 BLOCK 4 HIGH POINT SUBDEVISION (PROPERTY BEHIND SAID PROPERTY') HORSE SET UP, ttORSES ANI) I~[rLE$, BARNS, ETC. ~,:,::: '::: ~ ~: : , · ": :~ ~ .... . ...: :~' ~ . ,~,, .,. LOT 1 g BLOCK 5 HIGH POINT SUBDEVIStON ( PROPERTY A COUPLE LOTS DOWN ON SAME SIDE OF STREET) HORSE BARN, HORSE PASTURE. VIEW OF PROPERTIE BEHIND HIGH.POINT SUBDEVISION (HORSE PASTURES AND GOAT PASTURES JUST DOWN Tt-IE ROAD) HOWARD W. KOSTBADE, CHRISTINE E. KOSTBADE, DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS PHILIP J.. KNAUB~ SA_RAil KNAUB, LOUIS T. EAUER, SECOND A}~NDM~NT JANIS A. BAUER, WILLIAI~ J. EMINE%~{ and HIGIt POINT SUBDIVISION ARVELLA C. EMINETI{ -TO- Recorded: October i1, 1973 at 10:15 A.M. in' Book 1012, T N E P U B L I C pare 980 HOWARD W. KOSTBADE and CHRISTINE E. KOSTB~kDE, husband and wife, of Chicago, Illinois; PHILLIP J. k~AUB and SARAH KNAUB, husband and wife, of Laurel, Montana; LOUIS T. BAUER and JANIS A. EAUER, husband and wife, of Laurel, Montana; and WILLIAM J. ~,~IN~T~I and ARVELLA C. EMrNETH~ husband and wife, of Laurel, Montana, to the PUBLIC: %~{EILEAS, the undersigned are the owners of more tha~' 60% of the real property located in Yellowstone County, Montana, described as follows: All of thc lots and tracts in High Point Subdivision to Yellowstone County, Montana, according to the official plat thereof on file in the office 0f~ the Clerk and Recorder of said County, under Document //877245. A~D WHEREAS, the aforesaid owners desire to place building restrictions on the above-described premises; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the undersigned hereby establish and declare the following Second 7~nended Declaration of Restrictions wnzeh shall be applic.able to all the above-described real estate, and which amends and replaces the instrument entitled "Declaration of Restrictions" under document No. 883224 and the instrument entitled "Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions of High Point Subdivision" un'let documen.* No. 918001, records of Yellowstone County, Montana, PERSONS BOUND BY THESE RESTRICTIO~:S Tile u~dersighe'd and' all p~rsons 'and eorpor~tlon who shall hereafter acquire any interest in and to the above-described real estate shall be taken and held to agree and covenant each with the other' and with their heirs, devisees, trustees and assigns, to conform ~o and observe the following covenants, restrictions and stipulations as to the use thereof, and ae ~o the construction of dwellin~s and improvements thereon. BUILDING AND USE RESTRICTIONS 1. Each lot or tract in the above subdivisions shall be known and described as a residential lot. None of said lo~s or tracts may be used or improved for other than private residential purposes and no structures shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any such residential lot other than one single family dwelling not to exceed t~o stories ir{ height. 2. ~]e term "residential purpose" as used herein shall be construed to ex- clude mobile homes ~ trailers, hosp~.tals, duplex houses, apartment houses and any Peeler/Rest co~t. (1012/980) HICH POI]qT SUBDIVISION -2- other multiple dwelling houses, and to further exclude professional and commercial uses, and any such usage of this property is expressly prohibited. 3. None of the above-described proper~y or any building or improvements erected thereon shall at any time be used for the purpose of any trade, profession, manufaeturing~ or business of any description, and no noxious or offensive activity shall ba carried on, nor shall anything be done thereon which may become an annoy- ance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 4, Any residence (exclusive of detached guest and/or servant quarter) hera- after erected or placed on any loc or tract, if used by the ~,,ner as his princi- pal residence, shall.be so constructed that the area (exclusive of the area of porches, terraces, patios and garages) enclosed within tbs perimeter of the exter- ior walls ia not less than 1,000 square feet, when measuxed at the intersection of a plans passing at right angles through a vertical projection of such walls. In the even~ of the construction of a bi-level, rtl-level or two story residence, the ground floor shall enclose an area not less than 700 square 'feet excluding garage and breezeway. 5. No outbuildings or structures shall he allowed on said premises except patios, carports, breezeways, garages of any size, an outbuilding or storage shed, and one loafing shed or barn suitable for {our (4) animals plus tack room and tool storage, net to exceed 200. square feet floor area per structure. 6, Ail residences, buildings and structures erected on said property shall be of new construction and.no old buildings will be moved upon said premises. This paragraph does not prohibit the erection of newly constructed modular or factory built, residences or other buildings. 7. None of the lots or ~racts as presently p!et~ed shall be further sub- divided. 8. There shall be no minimum area for build, nas or structures other than dwellings. 9. No signs, billboards posters, or advertising 'devices of any kind or character shall be erected or displayed upon any of the lots, excepting subdivi- sion promotion signs, signs displayed to identify the occupantsI of a dwelling, realtors' signs and con,rectors~ construction signs. Contractors' signs and realtors' signs shall not excesd 3 feet by 2 feet and contractors~ signs shall be displayed only during construction. 10. Any septic tank or sewage ~2~yaste disposal system~ and any privets water supply systems, including wells, shall be located, installed and maintained at all times in compliance with standards established by the Montana State Board of Health and by any other Governmental agency having jurisdiction, and all of the above-described lots are subject to the sanitary restrictions and requirements of the State of Montana as prescribed by Sections 69-1342 through 69-13~2, inclusive, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, and amendments thereto, and regulations pertain- ing thereto as promulgatdd by She State Board of Health of the State of Montana. I1. ~uy structure hereafter ~o be erected on any lot ar tract shall ba eom- Declar/Rest cont. (1012/980) HIGH POINT SUBDIVISION -3- menced within 180 days after equipment and/or material to be used in the construc- tion thereof ara moved onto the location, if such equipment and materials are left exposed to view, and all construction shall be pursued with reasonable dili- gence. 12. No living quarters, temporary or othem~ise, are to be maintained in a basement of a dwelling under construction unless Lb= building is first frsmed in and the exterior completed. No garage, or other outbuilding shall be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor ~hall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence. 13. No trash, debris, organic or inorganic waste, except natural animal wasta, ~hai1 be permitted to accumulate on any lot or tract or in any street or road adjacent thereto, but shall be promptly and efficiently disposed of, and no vacant or other lot or tract shall be used as a dump' ground or burial pit. Gar- bage containers which are not buried below the ground shall be kept in racks and concsalsd from view by fences,~hadges or other means. Storage tanks for fuel or water, if above ground level, shall likewise be concealed from view. 14. No gravel shall be removed or sold from any lot or tract. 15. Any owner of any lot or tract x~ho maintains fences of any kind shall be obligated to erect and maintain in such manner as they shali at no time be in any way unsightly or detrimental in their appearance. No fence or wall hereafter erected along a side or rear lot line shall exceed'"~feat i~ height~ but this ~hall not be construed to praclude the use of a fence or ~all not exceeding 6 feet in height to screen a patio, swim~in~ pool 'or similar area if no portion of the fence or wall is less than 12 feet from the side or rear lot lines. The afore- mentioned fanta and wall restrictions also apply to hedges and mass ~lanting in the front yard. 16. Sidawalks, curbs, gutters and street improvements, and other special improvements such as water, sewer and sro.tm scl. ers, when and if installed, shall be installed in accordance with grades and requirements established by the town, city or county having 3urisdiction at ~hat time. The obligation tn pay for all of the above improvements shall be the obligation of the lot or: tract owners at the time the improvements are installed. 17. No buildings or other structures shall ha located less than 25 feat from the front lot or tract line or less than I2 feet from the side and rear lot or tract lines. No buildings or other structures shall be located less than 25 feet from ~he lot or ~racc lime adjacent co any street. 18. In the event of installation in the futura of underground utilities, all costs for such installation shall be the obligation of the owners of the lots or tracts st the time of installation. 19. ltousehold pets and four (4) horses or~ cattle (or combination thereof not to exceed four (4) head in number par lot) will bm allowed on each let~ all other animals are expressly prohibi~ed. Dealer/Rest cont. (1012/980) HIGIt POINT SUBDIVISION -4- RiGI1T TO ENFORCE The amended restrictions herein set forth shall run with the land and bind the present owners, their heris, devisees, trustees, and assigns; and any and ali parties claiming by, through or under them, shall be taken to hold~ agree and covenant with the owners of.:,:s..~!d lots, their heirs, devisees, trustees, and assigns,. and with each of the owners of said lots, to cos:form to and observe said rast~ic- ~ions as co the use of said lo~s and the construction of improvements thereon; but no restrictions herein set forth shall be personally binding upon any corpora- ~ion or person except in respect to breaches committed during its or his ownership of or interest in said land. The owner :or owners of any of the above l~nds shall have the right to sue. for and obtain an injunction, prohibitive or manda~ory, to prevent the breach of, or to enforce the observance of, the restrictions set forth above, in addition to the ordinary legal action for damages; and the failure of the present owners, or the owner or owners of any lot in this subdivision to enforce the restrictions herein set forth At the time of any violation thereof shall not be construed as a ~,aiver 6f the right to do ac..The above amended res- trictions may be altered, amended or rescinded at any time upon the written con- sent thereto by the owners of at least 60% of the area of the lo~s or tracts in- cluded in said subdivision. DATED this 8th day of October i973. HOWARD W. KOSTBADE CttAISTINE E. KOSTBADE : PHILIP J. tG~AUB SAKAlt k~AUB LOUIS T. BAUER JANIS A. BAUEP. WILLIAM J. EMINETH ARVELLA C~ EMINETH ACF~ OWLED GED C -,'ZA '-'-- O? .......... Count'.., of Yellowstone ,.-., , , . ~..-.. :.. :- , '..""~, .,t,,' .. .,,~'y "u?L~c :~- ~¢~, ,;~z?x~ oE~ kmt.~na County of Yellowstona ) . . . On thzs ay of ~'~.~-/,,.:A.'.~.- 1973, before me, the unrlersigne~, a ~o~ary Pub~ for thu S~ate ,,f ;4on,aha, personally appear~ WILLIAM J. ~.~INETH ~ ARVELLA C. EMINETH, husband and wife, subscrib~ to the for~o~g lns:rumunt and acknowledgc~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ~%'e hereunto =et mv hand and affixed my [*:otarial S~l th~ day and year in this certlf$cate first abov~ .-" -~.t~: ~' / '" The undersionc~ b~in,3 u%~m~rs ¢.? lets in the real and con~ont to ~aid .~o~] ~e~lar~ti~,/of R~s~i~n~7 Amendmsn~ to Declurations Of r, en%rtc%~on~ of the ]{igh Point subdivision WI{EREAS, ~Toward W. Kos~ade an4 ~ristine ~. Kos~ade, husband ~d wife, of Chicago, Illinois, ar~ ~ o~ers County, Monroe, and, ~E~AS~'.by instr~en~ dated l~ay !~, 1971~ entttle~ of Restrictions" which instrument wa~ ffle4 May office of ~e Clerk end R~corder o~ Y.11owstone County, Mon~a, to the pur~ses.~ermin contained, an~, I~E~A~, by documen~ end,led "~endmentm to Declaration of filed in ~e office of the Clerk ~d Recorder of Yell~stone Count, Montana on October 6, 1972, under ~c~ent ~91B001, said Declaration of Restrictions was ~ended ~E~AS, by docu~n~ an%tt~ed =Secon~ ~nded Declaration Rastric~ons of High Point S~division", datea October 8, !973. filed in ~e office of ~e Clerk an~ Recorder of ~ty, Mont~a on October 11, 1973, under Doc~ent ~4613l, smi~ Declaration of Kastrlc%i0ns was fur~er Restrictions, ~d ~en~ents ~ereto, ~e o~ers ares of ~e lo~ ~ tracts include~ ~ ~e said s~dtv~ston may ~end or rescind said res~icttons, .~d, NOW ~E~FO~, in consideration of ~e premfse~, ~e undersigned hereby ~end ~e '"Declarati6n 6f Restric~s", Declaration of Reelections of ]ligh Poin~ S~dlg~s~on", "Secon~ ~en~ed Declara~on of Restrictions of ~{igh division", by =h~giog p~agraph ~ ~reof ~o ' erected on ~e said property~ except Lot 1~ Block $, shall b~ of n~w cons~uction o1~ buildings wi!l be moved upoD sai4 Lot !~, Block ~,. of the ~{igh ~oint subdivision m~ be used for ~e pu~ose of loca~ng an old building to be moved onto said lot. This para- graph dou~ not prohibit the erection of newly cons~uct~d modular or facto~ buil~ or o~ar buildings." I ~ R~N D~TE - ~/~/~ T~XP~YER ~NDEX P~GE ~ KURKDSKI, NOEL * & L~USCH, NANCY JEAN '. '~ 1~ 1608E M~RY~ND LN 04~000 { )~ · .. ~.. _... -. ~ 1707 E ~ARYLAND ~ LAUREL MT PETERSflN~ VERNON L NUTMEG LN ~ oe M~RYLAND LN · , ,~ VELLOW~TONE OOUNTY - 4. 1 '~ RUN DATE - 18/8~10~ TAXPAYER INDEX P~E .~ ') ~ THOMAS, BARD B / ' o3-08al-lg-a-16-a3-oooo ~ / iii0 NUTME~ LN ~ ' HIBH POINT BUB ~ . .[.. 1 ~--~ ' ~ VOLMER, D~RREN & Prudential Floberg ReALTORS 1550 Poly Drive BiiJings, MT 59102 Bus 406 254-1550 Fax 406 2~q653 ~ruflo~floberg.cm h~p://~w, floberg.com Nov~b~ 12, 2003 M~o ~: 1707 E. ~Imd L~e, M~el I am sending this update to: Brad Amdorfer Kathy Keepers IL~dy laeob~s, Jr. Sharon Boyd Cal Cnmin ~/ Lmda Wedet , Wi/low Pederson Willow said she is moving out of her property this Friday, November 14~. The dog and horses am gone. She wiU be taking the few chickens with her on Friday. In look/ng at Randy's October 23~a letter, I believe the two itarm left is the barn encroachment and possibly a problem with' fencing, Am to the bars, someone said im 10 feet from the property line amd its suppose to he at least 12 feet. No one seerm to know what might be objcotienable about any fencing. If P, mndy communicates with Brad that his clients still want the barn location resolved, I'd be willing ~;o help. I believe it would entail obtaining signatures from 60% of thc approximate 70 rog/stored owners in High Point Subdivision allowing the reported two feet infringement to stand. Let me know if I can be of ass/stance. tmthfillly tho Way she rmmmnbers th*re. She is renlenah~f'ingRcaltor Sharon Boyd saying she could have any number of horses on the property. Here again, Sharon being a highly respected sales person, was speaking with honesty how SYrl~ rmbers the .~enc. Sharon absolutely denies this and maid quite the opposite heppeneck She rcmaemhers going over the restrictions personally with Willow. In cheeaking our advertising I don't see any_ada on the property that mention horses. Willow's closing took place at Security Title Company. Sharon Boyd tells me they have inspected their files and they show that their standard procedure took place. Wi/low was given the title report with the restrictions stapled to it. They also told Sharon that they had Wi/low's signature aeimowledging the above· Willow remembers one o£th¢ salespeople involved brought ever a bunch of sheep, for a short' stay, ruaning well over the four head maximum livestock. Boyd and Keepers both say they never had any sheep and dida't have any idea mbo it could ha~e been. Two years ago Willow paid $137,500 for the property. Our sales associate Linde Wedel has it listed for $175,900. Because of the recent happenings the prop~ty must comply with City of Laurel zoning resttiction~, no livestock, no chiclmns, etc. The good news is that even with the zoning restrictions, it's being shown. Needlpss tO say, any prospect is quickly informed o.f the current situation. Both Linde and 1 have. compassion.fpr WillO~ and ~e predioament she is in. We need to work hard to get her proPerty ~old. sincerely, ' Don Floherg CONTENTS 1. LISTING ADVERTISEMENT 2. CAL CUMMINS LETTER 3. LETTER TO REALTORS 4. COVENANTS 13. ZONING LAWS 15. LAUREL CITY ATTORNEY LETTER 16. LYNN GRANT LETTER TO CITY ATTORNEY 1707 E. Maryland Lane Close In Horse Property PRICE: $175,900 TERMS: Cash, New Loan AGE: 1996 SQ. FOOTAGE: 1,008 Up, 1,008 Down LOT SIZE: 1.9 Acres TAXES: $931 SCHOOLS: GraffMiddle School, Laurel High School MARKETING AGENT: LINDA WEDEL 238-7176 (O), 628-6540 (H), 855-6540 (C) ity Of Laurel 'ORK$: 6284796 R. OFC: 628-7431 r: 628-1964 P.O. Box '10 28-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 21, 2003 Willow Pedersen 1707 East Mat~,land Street Laurel, MT 59044 Dear Ms. Pedersen: The City of Laurel has zoning jurisdiction within one mile from its municipal limits. The area you live in is zoned Residential Tracts. This is a residential zone that does not allow animals. The zone also does not allow businesses (without approval) nor more than one dwelling unit per tract of land. I believe you are in violation of all of these requirements, and you must correct the situation. Failure to comply may constitute a misdemeanor, successful prosecution of which can include a $500 fine and/or six months in jail. Each violation is independent and each day of non-compliance is an additional day of violation. Cai Cmnin, AICP Planning Director cc: City Attorney City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer Eqnal Housing Oppo i, Amdorfer Law Firm, P.C. Brad L Amdo~fo' 2709 First Avenue North ~ P.O. Box 412 (406) 252-3911 ~. 1/.~ Billings, Mort(aha 59103 email: balawfirm@rnsn.com FAX (406) 252-3951 November 3, 2003 Kathy Keepers 1550 Poly Dr. Billings, MT 59102 Sharon Boyd 1925 Grand Ave., Suite #138 Billings, MT 59102 ]RE: Willow Pederson, 1707 E. Maryland Lane, Laurel, MT Dear Kathy mhd Sharon: As you are aware from my phone conversations Ms. Pederson has been hit with some unbelievably awful news. She bought the above property because she has horses and wanted to buy a place to keep her horses. Her neighbors are now complaining that the property is not zoned for horses and there are numerous buildings and fences that are in violation of the covenants on the property. Enclosed I am sending copies of the correspondence from Cai Cummins, Randy Jacobson and myself concerning this property. This is a notice of claim and we anticipate you will need to notify your insurance carr/ers of this problem. I also need the names and address of the sellers of the property if you have them. They are obviously a part of this ongoing problem. Hopefully the correspondence gives sufficient, detail to understand this problem. Thank you for your attention to this request. HONAIID W. KOSTBADE, CHRISTINE E. KOSTBADE, DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS PHILIP J.. KNAUB, SARA]! KNAUB, LOUIS T. BAUER, SECOND A~'-NDMENT JANIS A. BAUER, WILLIAM J. EMINEI/t and HIGH POINT SUBDIVISION ARVELLA C. EMINETI{ -TO- Recorded: October tl, 1973 at 10:iS A.M. in Book 1012, T H E P U B L I C page 980 HOWARD W. KOSTBADE and CHRISTINE E. KosTBADE, husband and wife, of Chicago, Illinois; PHILLIP J. ~AUB and SJ~Fo%H ~NAUD, husband and wife, of Laurel, Montana; LOUIS T. BAUER and JANIS A. BAUER, husband and wife, of Laurel, Montana; and WILLIAM J. EMINETH and ARVELLA C. EMINETH, h6sband and wife, of Laurel, Montana, to the PUBLIC: ~{EREAS, the undersigned are the owners, of more than 60% of the real property located in Yellowstone County, Montana, described as follows: Ail of the lots and tracts in High Point Subdivision to Yellowstone County, Montana, according to the official plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of said County, under Document #877245. ~D WHEREAS, the aforesaid ~nars desire to place building restrictions on the above-described premises; NOW, THEREFOP~, in consideration of the premises, the undersigned hereby establish and declare the following Second ~anded Declaration of Restrictions which shall be applicable to all the above-described real estate, and ~ich amends cud replaces ~he instrument entitled "Declaration of Restrictions" under document No. 883224 and the instrument entitled "Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions of High Point Subdivision" under document No, 918001, records of Yellowstone County, Montana, PERSONS BOUND BY THESE RESTKICTIO~S The undersigned and all persons and corporation Who shall hereafter acquir~ any interest in and to the above-described real estate shall be taken and held to agree and covenant each with the ether and with ~heir heirs, devisees, trustees and assigns, to conform to and observe the following covenants, restrictions and stipulations as to the use thereof, and as to the cone~ruetion of dwellings and improvements thereon. BUILDING AND USE RESTRI. CTIONS 1. Each lot or treat in thc above subdivisions shall be known and described as a residential lot. None of said lous or tracts may be used or improved for other than private residential purposes end no structures shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any such residential lot other than one single family dwelling not to exceed t~o stories in height. 2. The ~erm "residential purpose" as used herein shall be construed to ex- clude mobile homes, trailers, hospitals, duplex house~, mpm~tmant houses and any -1- PEDERSEN HEARING pag~ 4 Declar/Res~ cunt. (1012/980) UICH POII'TT EUBDIVISION -2- other multiple dwelling houses, and to further exclude professional and commercial uses, and any such usage of this property is expressly prohibited. 3. None of the above-described property or any building or improvements erected thereon shall at any time be used for the purpose of any trade, profession, manufacturing, or business of any description, and no noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on, nor shall anything be dona t!?reon ~ich may become an ~nnoy- ante or nuisance to the neighborhood. 4. Any residence (exclusive of detached guest and/or servant quarter) hefe- after erected or placed on any lot or tract, if used by ~e ~ner as his princi- pal residence, shall be so constructed that the area (exclusive of the area of porches, terraces, patios and garages) enclosed within the perimeter of the exter- ior walls is not less than 1,000 square feet, when measured at the intersection of a plane passing at right angles through a vertical prbjection of such walls. In the event of the construction of a bi-level, tri-level or two story residence, the ground floor shall enclose an area not less than ~00 square ~eet excluding garage and breezeway. 5.. No outbuildings or struatures shall be a]iowcd on said premises except patios, carports, breezeways, garages of any size~ an outbuilding or storage shed, and one loafing shed or barn suitable for four (4) animals plus tack room and tool storage, not to exceed 200 square feet floor area per structure. 6. Ail residences, buildings and structures erected on said property shall be of ne~¢ construction and no old buildings will be moved upon said premises. This paragraph does not prohibit the erection of ~ew!y constructed modular or factory built residences or other buildings. 7. None of the lots or tracts as presently pletted shall be further sub- divided. 8. There shall be no minimum area for build~!ngs or structures other than dwellings. 9. No signs, billboards, posters, or advertising devices of any kind dr character shall be erected or displayed upon any of ,the lots, excepting subdivi- sion promotion signs, signs displayed to identify the occupants of a dwelling, realtors' signs and contractors' construction signs. Contractors' signs and realtors' signs shall not exceed 3 feet by 2 feet and contractors' signs shall be displayed only during construction. 10. Any septic tank or sewage ~aste disposal system, and any private water supply systems, including wells, shall be located, installed and maintained at all times in compliance with standards established by the Montana State Board of Health and by any other Governmental agency having jurisdiction, and all of the above-described lots are subject to the sanitary restrictions and requirements of the State of Montana as prescribed by Sections 69-1342 through 69-1342, inclusive, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, and amendments thereto, and regulations pertain- ing thereto as promulgated by the State Board of Health of the State of Montana. 11. Any structure hereafter to be erected on any lot or tract shall be cum- Declar/Rest cont. (1~12/980) HIGH POINT SUBDIVISION -3- menced within 180 days after equipment and/or material to be used in the construc- tion thereof ere moved onto the location, if ~uch equipment and materials are left exposed to view, and all construction shall be pursued with reasonable dili- gence. 12. Mo living quarters, temporary or othem,,ise, are to be maintained in a basement of a dwelling under const'ruction unless th= building is first framed in and the exterior completed° No garage, or other outbuilding shall be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence 13. No trash, debris, organic or inorganic waste, except natural animal waste, shall be permitted to accumulate on any lot or tract or in any street or road adjacent thereto, but shall be promptly and efficien.tly disposed of, 'and no vacant or other lot or tract shall be used as a dump ground or burial pit. Gar- bage containers which are not buried below the ground shall be kept in racks and concealed from view by fences, hedges or other means. Storage tanks for fuel or water, if above ground level, shall likewise be concealed from view. 14. No gravel shall be removed or sold from any lot or tract. 15. An}, owner of any lot or ~ract who maintains fences of any .kind shall be obligated to erect and maintain in such manner as they shall at no time be in any way unsightly or detrimental in their appearance. No fence or wall hereafter erected along a side or rear lot line shall exceed 6 feet in height~ but this shall not be construed to preclude the use of e fence or wall not exceeding 6 feet in height to screen a patio, swi~ing pool or similar area if no portion of the fence or ~.~'al! is less than 12 feet from the side or rear lot lines. The afore- mentioned fence and wall restrictions also apply to hedges and mass ~lanting in the front yard. 16. 'Sidewalks, curbs~ gutters and street improvements, and other special improvements such as wa~er, sewer and storm sowers, %.:hen and if installed, shall be installed in accordance w~th Erodes and requirements established by the town~ city or county having ~urisdiction at that ~ime. ~l'he obligation to pay for all of tl~e above improvements shall be the obligation of the lo~ or tract owners at the time the improvements are installed. 17. No buildings or other structures shall be located less than 25 feet from the front lot or tract line or less than I2 feet from the side and rear lot or tract lines. No buildings or other structures shall be located loss than 25 feet from the lot or tract line ad3acent to amy street. 18. IP. the event of installation in the future of underground utilities~ all costs for such installation shall be the obligation of the owners of the lots or tracts at the time of installation. 19. Household pets and four (4) horses of cattle (or Combination thereof not to exceed four (4) head in number par lot) ~,,ill be allowed on each lot, all other animals are expressly prohibited. pEDERSEN HF~RING p~gm 6 Declar/Rest cont. (1012/980 HIGII POINT SUBDIVISION -~- lIGHT TO ENFORCE The amended restrictions herein set forth shall run with the land and bind the present owners, their heris~ devisees, trustees, and assigns; and any and all parties claiming by, through or under' them~ shall be taken to hold, egrae and covenant with the owners of.~s~id lots, their heirs, devisees, trustees, and assigns, and with each of the ~ners of said lots, to ¢~nform to end observe said restric- tions aa to the use of said lots and the construction of improvements thereon; but no restrictions herein set forth shell be personally binding upon any corpora~ tion or person except in respect to breaches committed during its or his ownelD~]ip of or interest in said land. The owner~or ~,,ners of any of the above lands shall have the right to sue for and obtain an in3unction, prohibitive or mandatory, to prevent the breach of, or to enforce the observance of, the restrictions set forth above, in addition to the ordinary legal action for damn~es; and the failure of the present owners, or the owner or ~ners of.any lot in this subdivision to enforce the restrictions herein set forth at the time of any violation thereof shall not be construed as a waiver 6f the right to do so. The above amended res- trictions may be altered, amended or rescinded at any ~ime upon the written con~ sent thereto by d~e owners of at least 60% of the area of the lots or tracts in- cluded in said subdivision. DATED this 8th day of October 1973. HOWAILDW. KCSTBADE CltRISTINE E. KOSTBADE PHILIP J. SAR;d{ ¥3AUB LOUIS T. BAUER JANIS A. BAUER WILLIAM J. EMINETH ARVELLA C, ~INETH ACF~0~%EDGED PF~DERSEN H~AP, IN(3 p~e ? -5- PEDERSEN HEA~NG p~s .-....~' ... (/.:,.):(. <, .?,.~..z., · ' "': ~ ' .'.~r:' ~:~.., 'U: .,~?~;,/~L ~//}'~Z~, " ,:~"~ ~:n~.,:, ,.>::,~r,.~: ~<~.:/~/-- o~ ...... ~., r have .~ereunte net n? a.~r..1 and affixed -6- PBDERSEN HEARING pe~e 9 P~[~F,R~EN HEARINO pa~e Amendment tO Declarations of ~ ' Rastrict~ons of the I{lgh Point Subdivision WHEREAS, 7{oward W. Kostbade and Christine E. Kostbade, husband and wifa~ of Chicago, Illinois, srs the owners ~n exc~es of 60% of ~e lotm wt~ln kh~ I~lgh Point S~division of Yell~stone County, Montana, ~E~AS[ by instr~ent datod 3.lay 10, 1971~ entitled "Declaration of Restric~ion=" which ~nstr~ent was filed May 28, 1971, In ~e office of the Clerk and Recorder of ~ll~stone C0un~y, ~.~ontana, under. ~cument ~883224, ~e use of said property was restricted to th~ pur~ses.~erein contained, and, T~TE~AS, by document entitled "~endments to Declaration of Restrictions of ~{igh Point Subdivision', dut~d August I4, 1972, files in ~e offic~ of the Clerk ~d RecoYder of Yell~stom~ County, Montana on October 6, 1972,. ~nder ~cument ~918001, ~e said Declaration of Restrictions wa~ ~ended ~E~AS, by do'cumenC entitled "Second A~nded Declaration of Restrictions Of J~tgh Point S~divimion", dates October ], !973. filed tn ~e offics of ~e Clerk and Recorder of Ye11~tone cowry, Mont~a on October 11, 1973, under Doc~ent ~946132, ~a said Deularation of Restrictions was fur~er ~ended, ~, by the provisions of ~ha afcrm~m~d ~claratton of area of ~e lots ~d trmuts included in the said s~divimion may ~snd or rescind said rmstrtctlons,.and, ~{E~ the undmrsignmd, as owners of at least 60% of ~e lots or tracts de=~re, to ~end the said r~tric~ons, here~y ~nd ~e "D~claratt6n of Restrictions", "~ndment to Declaration of Restrtction~ of High Point S~di%fsion", ~d ~e ' "Secon~ ~en~ed Deularation of Restrictions of ~igh Point division", by changing p~agraph {6 ~%eruof to provide as follows "6. All residences, building~ and structures erected on ~ said property, e~cept Lot Block ~, shall bu of new construction and no old buildings will be moved upon said prop~.rty. Lot 1~, Block 5,. of the ~iqh Point subdiv~sion ~ be used for ~e pu~ose of loca~ng an old building to be mowed onto said lot. This para- graph does not prohibit the erection of newly or o~er buildings.' (date) z ' '= ..(Howard W.' 17.12.020 G. PUD-- Planned Unit Development; "Livestock units" in Section 17.08.651). H. RP--Residantial Professional; (Ord, 96-5 (part), 1996) L NC--Neighborhood Commercial; J. CBD-- Central Business District; 17.12.034 Residential tracts (RT) K. CC-- Community Commercial; zone. L. HC -- Highway Commemial; This residential zone is designed for sia- M. LI -- Light Industrial; gle-family residential homeg on a minimmn .. N. H1- HeaD, Iudustrial; of one acre of land and no livestock. Live- O. AP -- Aiq~o~t; stock is allowed only on pameis of land five P. FP --Floodplain; acres and Iarger and, on such large parcels, Q. P -- Public; must conform to the livestock unit require- R. SR -- Suburban Residential Zone; meats ofthe suburban residential zone. (Ord. S. RT-- Residential Tracts Zone. (Ord. 96-5 (part), 1996) 01-4 (part), 2001; Amended during 4-97 supplement; prior code § 17.24.020) 17.12.050 Residential-7500 (R-7500) ZOne. 17.12.030 Agricultural-open space The residential-7500 zone is intended to (AO) zone. provide an area for medium, urban-density, The agricultural-open space zone is in- single-family, residential environment on tended to preserve laud for agricultural and lots that are served by a public sewer and related use. Land within this zone is usually sewer system. (Prior code § 17.242020(C)) unsubdivided and with a minimum of roads, streets, and other utilities. It may be culti- 17.12.060 Residential-6000 (R-6000) rated acreage or land less suitable for culti- zone. ration, yet suitable For various agricultural The residential-6000 zone is intended to enterprises using the broadest scope of the agricultural definition. Land within this zone may be located adjacent to highways and arterial streets. The AO zone is further in- tended to discourage the scattered intrusion of nses not compatible with an agricultural rural environment. (Prior code § 17.24.020(A)) 17.12.031 Suburban residential (SR) zone. This zone is limited to single-family resi- dential tracts on a minimum of five acres of land and on which agricultural uses may be conducted with the exception that animal units shall not exceed five per five acres (see (t~,~t 7-0n 382 CITY OF LAUREL P.O. Box 10 = Laurel, Mo & 9044 Table 17.16.010 RE R R 22,000 7J00 6.000 RLMF RMF RMIt P[~ $R ~RT ~ Acc~oU bulldog or use incident~ wilh ~e pdn~ipa[ bnilding ~d locamd on the ~ "' same [md parcel ~ the p~ilted usc A A A A A A A A ~imaIs ~e~ zoning djs~ct d:cfipdoa for sped f- ics) A ted r~idcmial use A A A A A A A A Bed ~d brcakl~t im~ SA SR Bonding ~d lodging ho~es SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Ce 0wem(s~S~tions 17~1 ~17.21.040) F~ily d~y c~ home A A A A A A A Day cure ~nter SR $R SA SR SR ~ 5R SR Chur~ ~d o~er plac~ of wo~p ~duding . p~ish hous~ ~d S~day school buil~in~ ~ SR SR SR SR ~ A S~ Co~anication towm (s~ S~fiom 17~1.02~ 17.21.040) few~ p,mons A A A A A A A A mo~c pe~ns ~ SK SA SR SR SR ~ SR O~h~ng~ md ~tabl~ inst~fi~ SR iR SR SR SR SR A Convems ~d r~torie* SR SR SR SR SR SR A SR PETERSON and SCHOFIELD ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~.~. o ~o. o..~ c ~c<=~_~ ~.,.,,,~ a.~.~ 1645 PARKHILL DRIVE. SUITE 8 · BILLINGS, MONTANA fl~102 · PHONE: (406) 252-B679 · (BBB) 252-6679 F~X: 1406} 252-4919 Januau'26.2004 Keith Molyneaux Deputy Laurel City Attorney Jo t7 3~d Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 Re: Willow Pedersen 1707 East Mao'land Street Laurel, NIT 59044 Dear Mr. Molyneaux: Thank you for providing to me a complete cop3.' of Title 17 of' the City of Laurel ordinances regarding zoning. As'I indicated on the phone, our office represents Prudential Floberg Realtors. Prudential Floberg Realtors currently has Willow Pedersen's propert7 listed tbr sale. Several parties have expressed interest in purchasing this property fi'om Ms. Pedersen. However. they have refi'ained from making offers due to the letter Ms. Pedersen received from Cai Cumin, Planning Director ~tbr the Ciu' of Laurel, dated October 2 I, 2003. I enclose for 3'our review a copy of that letter as Exhibit 1. Ms. Pedersen's properb' carries tbe following legal descriptioni Lot 21, Block 5. of Highpoint Subdivision. according to the official plat on tile in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Yellowstone Connvy, Montana, under Document No. 877245. A cop3' of the Ste~vart Title commitment reflecting this legal description is attached as Exhibit 2. At the time of approval or' this subdivision, the property.' was agricultural. Covenants and restrictions concerning use of this property were mnended twice. I attach hereto as Exhibit 3 copies of the second amendments which were recorded October t 1, PEDE}~SEN HEARING psgs 16 Keitb Molyneaux JanuaLw' 26, 2004 Page 2 1973 in Yellowstone County Clerk and Recorder's office, Book I012, Page 980. Restrictions were placed with regard to agricultural animals allowed on the properts'"at paragraph 19 of the second amended restrictions. With regard to horses, there is a limit ol-' four horses or cattle, or both, in any combination. The letter of Mr. Cumin dated October 21, 2003, advises Ms. Pedersen she is in violation, of city residential zoning restrictions with regard to keeping of animals, particularly, Ms. Pedersen's horses. Montana case law is fairly clear with regard to non-conforming uses xvhich were in existence prior to passage ofnmnicipal zoning ordinances. In }Fazts v. Helena { 1968), 151 Mout. 138, 439 P.2d 767, the Montana Supreme Court noted the general rule that non-conforming uses are exceptions to zoning restrictions, for those uses existing prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance. The right to continue the non-conforming use is passed to subsequent purchasers. No expansion of a non-conforming use is allowed absent permission within the zoning regulation itself, or by variance. A copy of the ~Varzs v. Hele~m case is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The right for continuation of non-conforming use is also statutorily set forth at §76-2-208, M.C.A. In Alde~ v. Boardo. fZoning Commissio~,ers (1974), 165 Mont. 364. 528 P.2d 1320, the Montana Supreme Court declined to enforce a zoning "grandfather clause" which was not in compliance with this section. A copy of that ease is attached as Exhibit 5. For discussion of the differences and interplay between non-conforming uses and "variances", your attention is directed ~heefer v. Armstrong (1972). 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. It appears the Ci~' of Laurel zoning ordinances regarding non-conforming uses, lbund at chapter [7.56, is in compliance with Montana statutes. Specifically, Section 17.56.010 reads: Any lawful use of the land or buildings at the date of passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and located in the district in which it would not be permitted as a new use under the regulations of this chapter. is declared to be a non-confomfing use, and not in violation of this title at the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter; provided, however, a non-conforming use shall be subject to, and the owner shall comply with the regulations set out in Sections 17.56.020 through PED~RSEN HEARING page 1 ? Keith Molyneaux Januao' 26, 2004 Page 3 17.56.070 (prior code .,517.64.010 (part)). A copy of this particular passage is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. The lower right hand corner of this chapter shows its adoption in August, 1993. It would appear that the use of the property by Ms. Pedersen for horses, indeed for all subdivision homeowners, is a non-conforming use allowed under Montana law. and under the Laurel zoning regulations. Therefore, the letter issued by Mr. Cumin on October 21,2003. should not have been issued in regard to the keeping by Ms. Pedersen of horses on this propert% In response to this letter. Ms. Pedersen has removed her horses, and applied to the Laurel City/Count' Planning Board for a variance allowing her to keep up to font horses on the prope~Iy. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a copy of the public notice with regard to her hearing scheduled for February 5, 2004. Based on Montana law. Ms. Pedersen should not be required to seek a variance for a pennitted non-contbrming use. It appears under the circumstanc'es that the appropriate way to proceed in this matter is the issuance of a letter by Cai Cumin, superceding his letter of October 21; 2003, recognizing and approving the keeping of horses on this proper¢' as a non- conforming use. With the issuance of that letter, the variance request should be withdrawn and taken off the agenda for public hearing. The need for having such a written statement from Mr. Cumin, which can be placed with the listing materials [br this property, is so prospective purchasers are assured the keeping of horses is allov,'ed. Willow Pedersen is represented in the zoning mafters by Mr. Brad Arndorfer. Esq. Mr. Arndorfer's address and telephone are as follows: Mr. Brad Arndorfer 2709 1,t Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 (406) 252-3911 I v,,'ould greatly appreciate your corresponding both with myself and Mr. Arndorfer with regard to your review of these materials and whether proceeding in Keith Molyneaux January 26, 2004 Page 4 this fashion is agreeable. Thank you ['or your prompt review. Cordiallv. (~ _~.~/~f~n M. Grant LMG/tms Enclosures cc. Don Floberg Brad Amdorfer P~DERS~N H~.~PJHG F*a~e 19 ELK RIVER LAW OFFICE, P.L.L.P. Attorneys at Law Majel M. I~ussell P.O. Box 928 Sam S. Pa'rater Office: (406) 259-8611 Billings, MT 59103-0928 Keith A. Molyneaux Facsimile: (406) 259-3251 3317 3~ Avenue North Jim Yellowtail ellu'iverlaw~elkriver]aw.com Billings, MT 59101 January 29, 2004 Mr. Lynn Grant Attorney at Law 1645 Parkhill Drive, Suite.6 Billings, Montana 59102 RE: Willow Pederson 1707 East Maryland Street, Laurel, Montana 59044 Dear Mr. Grant: I am in receipt of your letter daled Janua~ 26, 2004 in regard to the above-named property owner. Your letter was addressed to Keith Molyneaux, however, I represent the City in its civil matters, therefore, I am responding on the City's behalf. Any fU~her correspondence should be addressed to me instead of Mr. Molynenux. At, er reviewing your letter, I conferred with the Planning Director regarding kis October 21, 2003 letter. Based upon my investigation and research, it appears that a majority of your letter is correct. However, I must correct a couple inaccuracies that are crucial in this case. First, in my opinion, I believe you are correct, Ms. Pederson's use does constitute a prior non- conforming use under the applicable state and local zoning laws. Additionally, I believe you are correct, the local zol~ing ordinances do hldeed comply with the applicable Montana case law and statutes regarding the continuance of non-con£onning uses. The problem with your analysis begins with your allegation that the regulations set out in Sections 17.56.020 through 17.56.070, were adopted in August 1993. Frmfldy, this allegation is wrong. The date you cite is simply thc date of the most recent revision(s). In fact, this code was adopted in 1978. Therefore, your 1993 date is an error. Second, although Ms. Pedersun's use does indeed constitute a non-conforming use, I believe the right of continuing the nun-conforming use was extinguished through a long period of non-use or "Discontinuance" addressed under Section 17.56.070. The neighbors filing the complaint against Ms. Pedersun's use are willing and able to provide written and/ur oral evidence in tiffs regard. However, sinoe an applicatiun for a variance has been filed, I see little value gathering such evidence until absolutely necessary. What I propose is that you stay your challenge until a decision on the variance request is rendered. Although I have no authority over the variance decision, it appears to me that more likely than not, the variance should be approved which should remedy this situation amicably between the parties avoiding mmecessary fees and costs. If you disagree with my assessment of this matter, feel ft~eo to contact me. (~ ~.~ cc: Brad Amndorfer / Cai Cumin