Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Puchtas withdraw application for horse barn - Horse community seeks to address substantive issues

David and Annette Puchta announced plans to withdraw their application for an Administrative Permit to build a pair of horse barns on their Bonsall property, although the response of other horse owners to the substantive issues raised during hearings at the county’s Planning Commission has created a second battle which will likely continue after the Puchtas have selected an alternative to their Administrative Permit.

The Puchtas proposed an 11,520 square foot barn which would include 40 stalls – 28 of which would be used for horses and the remainder for storage of tack and other equipment – and a second story for hay storage on the western portion of the site and a 6,177 square foot barn near the southeastern portion of the site which would include 20 stalls, a hay and equipment storage area, and a tack and buggy storage area. The Puchtas, who show saddlebred horses, also planned to build two riding arenas which would include cut and fill of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of material.

Barns and agricultural storage buildings are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas, but the maximum accessory building size is based on parcel size and a parcel between five and six acres is allowed 2,200 square feet by right (the Puchtas’ property in the 31900 block of Aqueduct Road near the intersection of Calle de Telar consists of 5.21 acres). Additional area, as well as any height beyond that allowed by right, may be allowed by the issuance of an Administrative Permit after notice to all contiguous property owners and findings to support the additional structure area. A Major Use Permit would be required for breeding or 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.

Neighbors Jaime and Dawne Clayton objected to the size of the project and fought the efforts during the public hearing process. During the Zoning Administrator hearing November 28, county Zoning Administrator Rose Garduno approved the Administrative Permit after including conditions to ensure that the Puchtas would use the barn only for their own horses and not for breeding or boarding. The Claytons appealed Garduno’s decision to the Planning Commission.

The initial debate focused on whether the Puchtas actually intended to comply with the conditions, but later arguments by the Claytons’ attorneys questioned whether large-scale show horse activity constituted a commercial operation. Prior to the Planning Commission’s scheduled February 9 hearing, attorneys Carl Morrison, Kevin Sullivan and William Schwartz submitted documentation raising substantive issues about the county process for horse barns. The county’s Department of Planning and Land Use requested a continuance to review the issues addressed in the February 2 letter.

The attorneys representing the Claytons noted in their letter that the definition of a boarding or breeding stable in the county’s zoning ordinance does not require that the horses housed in the stables be owned by someone other than the property’s occupants, thus raising the possibility that a person or couple may have a boarding or breeding stable which exclusively houses personally-owned horses. The attorneys noted that the Puchtas would be required to obtain a sales tax permit and pay sales tax on their horses sold if three or more horses, or only 5 percent of the total allowable number of horses, were sold within a 12-month period and indicated that such a sale threshold would subject the Puchtas to additional state and local permitting requirements.

An organic farm also exists on the Puchtas’ property, and the Planning Commission was also asked to address cumulative noise and traffic impacts. The attorneys also questioned the adequacy of the California Environmental Quality Act study for the groundwater and surface water impacts from the storage of manure and stable waste. Although the Administrative Permit decision itself could not be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission’s determination of the adequacy of environmental studies and documentation can be appealed to the supervisors.

The planned project caused animosity between the Puchta family and the Clayton family, and both accused each other of harassment. David Puchta cited his belief of harassment by the Claytons in his decision to withdraw the application.

“I can no longer allow my family to be harassed by Dawne and Jaime Clayton,” David Puchta said during the March 9 Planning Commission hearing. “There have been far too many attacks by the Claytons on me, my family, the entire horse community.”

The withdrawal of their Administrative Permit application gives the Puchtas three possible courses of future action. Since their property has A70 agricultural zoning and an “L” designator, no permit would be needed to house the horses in pipe corrals. The Puchtas can apply for a Major Use Permit, which would include environmental studies and likely would include conditions of approval. The third option would be for the Puchtas to abandon plans to expand their horsekeeping operation. The Puchtas have not yet stated their future plans.

Since the Administrative Permit had already been granted and the hearing was for the appeal, Schwartz was concerned that a withdrawal would allow the permit to stand. “I want to make sure that we don’t run into any technical problems in the future,” he said. “This is our appeal, and we’re not sure that they can just withdraw.”

The solution was an official continuation of the Planning Commission hearing; the next hearing should include documentation signed by Puchta that he is withdrawing his application for an Administrative Permit. “We feel we can adequately address that concern by requiring the applicant to sign a written withdrawal form,” said County Counsel Paul Menhert.

Menhert also noted that if the appeal was denied and the Administrative Permit granted, California Environmental Quality Act studies would be required, which would cause an additional delay in the permit approval. CEQA review would not be needed for a decision granting the appeal and denying the permit.

The Claytons’ attorneys believe that the actual reason for the Puchtas’ withdrawal was that the most recent staff recommendation required the additional environmental studies, if not a Major Use Permit itself, before the permit could be granted. The staff report’s findings on scale indicated that parcels to the northeast have structures similar in scale but that the remaining parcels in other directions are primarily occupied by single-family residences with smaller accessory structures. The staff report indicated that the height of the barns was in harmony with surrounding properties but that the length, width, and floor areas substantially exceeded dimensions of other structures in the neighborhood. The staff findings cited agricultural operations with similar lot coverage percentages but noted that those structures were not accessory to a residence.

The staff report also cited a “fair argument” that the odors and noise may have a significant environmental impact and stated that an Environmental Impact Report would be required to analyze odor and noise impacts.

“I think it does affect not only the horse owners but people who live around them, too,” said Planning Commissioner David Kreitzer.

The staff report concerned horse owners throughout the county who fear that a precedent for non-commercial horse owners has been set. “That has raised some regional issues,” said Ron Wootton, a land consultant for the Puchtas.

Robert Johnson, the owner of Performance Horse Supply in Bonsall, noted that a citizens committee meeting would be held in approximately one month at his tack shop. “I think it’s time for us as citizens to garner what we need to protect ourselves from what we think is a fairly blatant violation to the Puchtas from the Claytons,” he said.

Susan Bernard, who lives in the 31500 block of Aqueduct Road, believes that the Puchtas’ project would be compatible. “It’s an agricultural community,” she said. “The project that the Puchtas were going to give us was very appropriate.”

Department of Planning and Land Use director Gary Pryor cited the project’s scale in the staff’s decision to recommend denial. “It becomes a question of threshold,” he said.

Pryor indicated that the property’s agricultural rights covered commercial activities – which would require the Major Use Permit – rather than residential uses such as recreation. “If it’s accessory to a residential use, that’s one thing,” he said.

David Puchta cited the need for protection of horse owners. “We need to bring these ordinances that put me through this process to the Board of Supervisors to adopt a clear policy to allow this to be by right,” he said. “San Diego is one of the largest horse communities in the United States of America.”

(Some documents indicate that San Diego County has more horse owners than any other county in the United States, in part due to county structures since Texas has 254 counties and Kentucky has 120 counties while encompassing less than 40,000 square miles, and also in part to population densities since Montana’s 56 counties total approximately one million residents.)

“This is a horse community. Allow horse business to flourish within our community,” Puchta said.

The specific Planning Commission hearing could not take action on a zoning policy to clarify the rights of horse owners. “At this point in time there is no intention on the department’s part to make changes to the ordinance,” Pryor said.

Bryan Keith of Rancho Santa Fe suggested that a Minor Use Permit requirement for oversize horse barns may be an appropriate ordinance amendment. “The amount of issues with regards to the county has made it very difficult to get Major Use Permits,” he said.

Keith noted that some applicants for Major Use Permits resort to applications to the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the property into another jurisdiction rather than endure County of San Diego procedures.

Planning Commissioner Bryan Woods felt that an ordinance change could be feasible. “Minimum lot sizes and populations on those minimum lot sizes should be considered,” he said. “I think it’s a very admirable challenge, and I think you have an opportunity to succeed.”

 

Reader Comments(0)