Calaveras planning commission delays decision on 4 Horse Ranch permit, asks staff for manure‑management criteria

The Calaveras County Planning Commission on March 13 continued review of a conditional use permit application from Jeremy and Lynette Smith Covey for 4 Horse Ranch, a private equestrian facility at 2911 Patriot Way in Burson. The commission voted to continue the item to a date certain for staff to return with clear criteria for a manure‑management plan and related conditions; the motion passed unanimously at the hearing.

Why it matters: The application seeks to legalize a long‑running, privately operated equestrian program that provides lessons, therapeutic equine work and limited events for invited clients, including at‑risk youth. Neighbors say the operation has produced nuisance conditions (flies, dust, stacked manure and parked vehicles blocking an access easement). Supporters testified the ranch provides services for foster and disadvantaged youth and is a local tourism and community asset. The commission suspended a final decision and asked staff to coordinate technical standards with Environmental Management and Public Works so the county can make enforceable conditions intended to reduce odors, flies and runoff.

Staff said the project was filed under the previous Title 17 zoning code and is therefore evaluated under those provisions. "This application was deemed complete under the old zoning code and is therefore subject to it, and not the current code," said Madeline Flandro, senior planner, in her presentation. The applicants requested a conditional use permit to recognize an existing private equestrian facility and to allow operations the staff report described as: up to four lessons per day; equine education and therapy sessions for invited clients (approximately two to five clients daily) with one to six adult chaperones/volunteers or employees; and up to three private birthday parties per year with a maximum of 25 invited guests.

Parcel and regulatory background: The subject parcel (APN 048‑009‑052) is roughly 20 acres and is accessed from Patriot Way, a private road and public utility easement off Highway 12. Staff said the parcel contains a single‑family residence, multiple fenced pastures, one arena and several storage shelters. The county prepared an initial study that was circulated in fall 2024 and later revised to a mitigated negative declaration (MND) after staff added a manure‑management plan as mitigation. That MND was circulated from January 3 to February 3, 2025; staff said four comment letters were received on that circulation, and multiple comments were submitted during application routing from fire, environmental management, Caltrans and the public.

Public comments and evidence: Routing agencies recommended conditions. The Calaveras Consolidated Fire Protection District urged maintenance and adequate width for the private road and a turnaround for emergency access; Caltrans recommended a stop sign at the Patriot Way/Highway 12 encroachment. Environmental Management asked for a manure‑management plan; staff later clarified the plan remains preliminary and must be approved by Environmental Management before any operation allowed by the CUP begins. The staff report said a follow‑up by Environmental Management removed some earlier conditions after the applicant revised the project to exclude a previously proposed camp.

Neighbors and other members of the public provided contested testimony. Opponents (several neighbors and property owners) raised concerns about persistent flies, manure storage near the entrance, dust, frequent vehicle traffic and occasional obstruction of the shared easement, the number of horses on a 20‑acre parcel, and whether pasture and cover are adequate. One neighbor said manure was temporarily piled at the entrance; another said lost homeowner insurance was attributed to the operation. Supporters — many of them current or former program participants, foster‑care alumni and parents — described the ranch’s role in crisis response, youth therapy and skills training. Multiple speakers recounted individual rescues, equine therapy outcomes and career or educational paths they attribute to the ranch’s programs.

Applicant’s position: Lynette Smith Covey, the applicant and operator, said the operation is a family‑run nonprofit and agricultural operation that provides services to foster and at‑risk youth, conducts limited trail‑ride logistics (meeting clients off‑site at Burson Market) and breeds horses for sale and personal use. She told commissioners she currently counts about 35 horses on the property, disputed some neighbor complaints, and said prior county inspections had cleared many alleged violations. She asked the commission to approve the CUP with mitigation that discourages unfounded complaints.

Technical points staff and agencies raised: Staff noted the neighbors closest to some paddocks are about 100 feet from one fenced pasture; Environmental Management and Animal Services said the commission can condition the CUP but enforcement of animal‑care standards on private property is largely complaint‑driven under existing county codes. Animal Services and Environmental Management agreed that a 20‑acre parcel could technically hold many animals if minimum care standards and turnout/shelter/management were met, but they emphasized that the county does not have a single prescriptive local standard for horse density and that compliance requires site‑specific mitigation (shelter for geriatric animals, storage protocols for manure, erosion and runoff controls, etc.). The staff report and testimony referenced a UC Davis guidance document on minimum standards for equine care; commissioners directed staff to reference established best practices when drafting recommended conditions.

Enforcement and inspections: Code compliance staff said enforcement is largely complaint‑driven. The county’s code compliance manager cautioned that requiring annual or proactive inspections as a condition of a CUP would require a department decision on staffing and fee allocation; the county could include an annual or unannounced inspection requirement as a condition, but it would require clarity on which department performs the checks and who pays for them.

Commission discussion and direction: Commissioners said they wanted to allow the program’s beneficial services to continue while reducing neighbor impacts. Several commissioners said 40 horses felt high for a 20‑acre rural‑residential parcel and discussed interim limits. In an informal poll during discussion, a majority of commissioners indicated support for an interim cap near 30 horses while staff and Environmental Management develop enforceable manure‑management and animal‑care criteria; commissioners emphasized that any cap, monitoring schedule and enforcement mechanism should be explicit in the final CUP conditions. Staff was directed to: (1) collect and propose objective criteria for a manure‑management plan (storage, removal frequency/limits, setbacks, cover, drainage controls, vector control), (2) coordinate the plan review with Environmental Management and Public Works (stormwater/runoff concerns), (3) clarify which county office will handle routine or complaint‑driven inspections and the fee/staffing implications, and (4) return the item with a redlined resolution and conditions for commissioner review.

Formal action taken: The commission did not approve or deny the permit. Instead the commission voted to continue the CUP hearing to a date certain so staff could return with the requested criteria and a revised resolution and conditions.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes (Jan. 23, 2025): motion moved and seconded; outcome: approved 4–0 with 1 abstention (recorded at the start of the meeting). (Mover/Seconder not specified in the public record excerpt.) - Selection of 2025 Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair: Michelle Plocknick nominated for chair and Hector Lozano for vice chair; motion seconded and approved by voice vote with no opposition; outcome: approved. (Mover/Seconder not specified.) - Conditional Use Permit 2024‑013 (4 Horse Ranch, APN 048‑009‑052, 2911 Patriot Way): continued to a date certain (motion passed; date set by the commission at the hearing); outcome: continued for staff to return with criteria and revised conditions.

Next steps: Staff will draft a list of objective criteria for the manure‑management plan and present a revised resolution and conditions for the commission’s review at the continued hearing. Environmental Management will review any applicant‑supplied plan and confirm what elements meet public‑health, nuisance and stormwater standards before any CUP‑authorized operations begin.

Context note: The need for a CUP followed an earlier administrative hearing board finding that some on‑site activities exceeded the zoning definition of a personal equestrian facility and therefore required conditional‑use review. The current hearing focused on the scope of allowed activities, environmental mitigation and enforceable conditions rather than re‑litigating enforcement history.