Puchtas' barns approved by Zoning Admin.

The county’s Zoning Administrator has approved an Administrative Permit for a Bonsall family to operate a pair of horse barns on their Aqueduct Road property.

The decision of Zoning Administrator Rose Garduno will stand if not reversed on appeal. Neighbors Jaime and Dawne Clayton will likely carry out an appeal to the county’s Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s decision can subsequently be appealed to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

During her November 28 decision, Garduno implemented assurances by David and Annette Puchta that the barns would be used only for their own horses and not for breeding or boarding. “My concern is that this is a large operation and it needs to just be your horses. If you want show horses, that is fine, but you need to be real clear that if that’s not what you want Code Enforcement will be all over you,” Garduno said.

A Major Use Permit would be required for breeding and boarding facilities on the site, but only an Administrative Permit is required for construction of a barn exceeding the by-right size for an accessory building. “This request is bigger than normal,” Garduno said. “It is imperative that you remain with the definition of horsekeeping.”

Garduno noted that the conditions, as well as the grading permit process, would address concerns of the Claytons and their legal counsel, Carl Morrison. “If there are drainage issues on the site they will be addressed through the grading permit process,” Garduno said.

“What we’re looking at is: is this appropriate?” Garduno said. “This procedure allows us to look at unique neighborhoods and unique requests.”

The 5.21-acre site is in the 31900 block of Aqueduct Road near the intersection of Calle de Telar; the property and all adjacent properties have A70 agricultural zoning. Barns and agricultural storage buildings are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas, but the maximum accessory building size is based on the parcel size and a parcel between five and six acres is allowed 2,200 square feet by right. Additional area, as well as any height beyond that allowed by right, may be allowed by issuance of an Administrative Permit after notice to all contiguous property owners and findings to support the additional structure area.

The findings accepted by Garduno include harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density. The existing home totals 4,250 square feet, so the addition of the 11,520 and 6,177 square foot barns would bring the total lot coverage to approximately 9.8 percent, which is comparable to that of surrounding properties. The 24-foot height of the two-story barn and the 16-foot height of the one-story barn would be compatible to other structures in the neighborhood which include agricultural and nursery operations as well as equestrian structures, and the barns would not generate an increase in density.

“This is an agricultural use,” Garduno said. “This would be a good location for this use.”

The 11,250 square foot barn is proposed for the western portion of the parcel and would include 40 stalls and a 2,160 square foot second story for hay storage. The 6,177 square foot barn would be located near the southeastern part of the site and would include a single-story 20-stall barn with a hay and equipment storage area and a tack and buggy storage area (the Puchta family shows saddlebred horses and the buggy will be used for carriage class competitions). The Puchtas also plan to build two riding arenas, and the earthwork will include cut and fill of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of material.

“They’re concerned about the impacts,” Morrison said of the Claytons.

The Clayton family also shows horses. “If they’d had limited it to 20 horses, the Claytons would have thrown their arms around them,” Morrison said.

Morrison himself grew up on a dairy farm with 40 cows and concurred with the Claytons that care for 60 horses might be overwhelming. “We cleaned those barns all the time,” Morrison said. “You knew that there were 40 cows there.”

The Bonsall Community Sponsor Group’s motion of January 3, 2006, implied a request for denial but did not officially recommend denial. The motion to recommend approval of the project failed by a 3-4 vote, but no subsequent motion to recommend denial was made. The sponsor group cited the size and scope of the project.

“They also felt that this was a commercial facility and not his own horses,” said Morrison, whose law office is in Bonsall.

Ron Wootton is the Puchtas’ project consultant. “The definition of horsekeeping in the agricultural zone fully includes with no limits keeping horses,” he said. “Most of the concerns of dealing with horsekeeping are being mitigated by keeping them in barns.”

Wootton added that greenhouses of similar size exist within the vicinity.

Morrison countered Wootton’s comparison with greenhouses. “Greenhouses are not even considered accessory structures,” Morrison said. “Greenhouses are quiet. They contain plants.”

The ability of the Puchtas to comply with stormwater runoff requirements is a concern for some of the neighbors. “Because of the topography the Puchta property does drain onto our property,” said Cathy Cranston, who lives in the 31700 block of Calle de Telar. “The Puchtas should have a Major Use Permit for this amount of horses.”

Cranston did not express objections to a smaller-sized barn. “I hope they can have some horses in a barn,” she said. “I think they’re asking for a bit too much.”

Morrison noted that the proposed barn is eight times the by-right allowable size. “The risk of additional impacts are tremendous and really should not be taken,” he said. “The impact to the neighbors will be significant to quite a degree.”

Civil engineer Kevin Bresnahan also asked Garduno to deny the Administrative Permit. “I felt that the project was beyond the size and scope of what was appropriate,” he said.

“The intent of the zoning ordinance is for a limited number of animals,” Morrison said. “The proposed use is clearly not in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance.”

Land use arguments are not the only forum of debate whether show horses are a hobby or a business. The 1986 changes to the Federal tax code limited deductions for show horses. It is common practice, however, for show horse owners to sell horses they train.

“If that’s not commercial, I don’t know what is,” Morrison said.

The Puchta family moved to Bonsall from Placerville. In 2003 Annette Puchta filed a fictitious business name statement for “Paradise Saddlebreds” in El Dorado County. Annette Puchta also registered Paradise Saddlebreds with the Secretary of State as a limited liability corporation in July 2006.

“This guy’s got a business,” Morrison said. “He shouldn’t be able to get an Administrative Permit for that.”

While Code Enforcement would have the authority to cite the Puchtas for any violation of their promise-based conditions, Morrison noted a difference between authority and ability. “We all know that county Code Enforcement is very, very busy,” he said. “Responses to Code Enforcement complaints are very slow.”

Wootton noted that selling of crops is allowed in agricultural zones. “That’s the definition of agriculture,” he said. “They could do that without the barns.”

David Puchta noted that he and his wife came to San Diego County in search of suitable property. “I intend to purchase, train, and sell my show horses and continue my hobby,” he said.

“These horses are kept in stalls. They’re worked on a regular basis,” Puchta said of his show horses. “They can’t be left outside like a dog.”

Garduno noted that the permit was requested based on an accessory use. “We are looking at certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance and trying to see if you fit into that definition,” she said. “If I can’t make the findings, I can’t grant this permit.”

Puchta said that he was willing to provide evidence of ownership for the horses on his property if Code Enforcement asked for that information. Garduno included that as one of the conditions of granting the permit. The size of any signage will be limited to the four square foot threshold allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, which was also acceptable to the Puchta family.

The property also has a small agricultural operation, and the trees are currently 26 feet apart. Puchta would prefer a closer distance between the trees, so he welcomed a screening condition to move the trees. “It’s a perfect opportunity for me. They need to almost touch,” he said.

The screening condition calls for the trees to be at least 15 feet apart and uses the phrase “substantial conformance” with the landscaping plan in order to allow for future flexibility.

The condition to wet the arena twice daily with additional waterings if needed to prevent dust was also a formality for the Puchtas. “I don’t like dust. My horses don’t like dust,” Annette Puchta said.

The environmental Negative Declaration indicated that the stable bedding waste material removed from the stalls would be placed into a dumpster bin which would be collected twice a week between May and October. Garduno added a requirement of collection once a week between November and April, which the Puchtas accepted as a technical correction.

The Negative Declaration also cites an organic fly spray system, steel grain and feed containers to control rodents, and maintenance of water troughs and other containers. The county’s Department of Environmental Health gave approval to the project’s vector control plan in December 2005, and Garduno left the decision of whether to cover the manure bins to DEH. “Whatever the health department wants, that’s what we’re going to give them,” Garduno said.

Garduno also limited the hours of equipment operation, including delivery and service vehicles, although transporting one’s own horses is not subject to those time constraints.