Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LPA grants special‑use permit and small variance to allow two rescue horses on residential lot
Summary
The LPA granted a special‑use permit and a 0.19‑acre variance to allow two rescue horses on a 1.81‑acre residential lot after staff said the application addressed code‑enforcement concerns; the board limited approval to the two existing animals and noted the case would move to two county commission hearings for final action.
The Baker County Local Planning Agency on June 18 approved a special‑use permit with an attached variance to allow two rescue horses to remain on a 1.81‑acre residential lot off Adams Road.
Planning staff explained the case had come to the county via code enforcement and that a site visit showed the horses were located behind the house and that the property was otherwise well maintained. Staff said the application asks relief of 0.19 acres from the county rule of one horse per acre and recommended approval; staff also noted that if the special use with variance were denied the county would continue the formal code enforcement process.
Neighbours provided mixed input in the public‑comment portion. A neighbor who identified himself as David said he had filed enforcement paperwork in the past but clarified he had "no problem with them having horses" and that his concerns related to paperwork and process rather than the animals. Another neighbor, Doug Scott, who said he lives next door, told the board there was no manure smell and that the owners kept the property clean.
The homeowners described their decision to take in two rescue horses as tied to family and mental‑health reasons; one owner told the board riding and caring for the animals has helped the family recover from past traumas. The owners said they would accept deed restrictions and were open to relocating structures on the lot if needed to meet setback requirements. The owner said the horses were receiving supplement feed and were kept in fenced areas designed for their care.
Staff clarified that a special‑use approval that includes the variance would satisfy the outstanding code‑enforcement violation related to the animals; if approved, the approval would be subject to conditions and limited to the two animals now on site. The board debated precedent and the appropriate limit for variances in residential neighborhoods but ultimately approved the special use and variance by voice vote, with members emphasizing that any additional animals would require a new application or amendment.
Because the approval includes a variance, staff told the applicants that the matter will return to the county commission for final consideration at two additional hearings as required by the public‑notice process. The LPA’s action resolves the immediate code‑enforcement trigger only if the commission follows the LPA recommendation.
