-7-
claimed that petitioner could not have used only 7-1/2 acres of
the Clayton property for his horse activity, because 7-1/2 acres
is not a large enough area on which to exercise approximately 30
boarded horses. However, petitioner credibly testified that he
does not train horses on his premises, nor does he give riding
lessons or offer horseback riding facilities. Therefore, a
boarding client who wants to train, ride, or exercise his or her
horse must transport the animal to another facility.
Accordingly, we found that because petitioner used the business
portion of his premises solely for breeding and boarding horses
he needs less land for such business, than for example, someone
who operates a horse training and horseback riding facility.
However, our finding does not negate the reasonableness of
respondent's position.
In the alternative, respondent argued that petitioner held
the upper portion of the Clayton property for investment. To
support her contention, respondent noted that such land is zoned
for residential use, and therefore has the potential of being
subdivided into four additional home sites that petitioner could
sell for profit. Furthermore, this area has a view of the
surrounding mountains and countryside, thus making it a lucrative
investment. Respondent points to the fact that petitioner had a
280-foot well drilled on one of the home sites for future use as
evidence that he held this portion of the property for
investment. Although in Schlicher I, we found that petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011