Seriously? It’s not inconsistent to say that “the person owns the land and they want to use it a certain way” and they should be able to, while saying that if a person wants to build a shelter for a horse, he shouldn’t be able to. It it clearly inconsistent to say that one person should be able to use his land as he wants and another should not be able to use his as he wants. Some in this thread are clearly partial to one party over the other - as the low-level government officials seem to be from the facts givenhere. Just eliminate the “zoning” regulations and let everyone do what they want and it clears it all up. You say “If the local zoning allows for that use then the NIMBY stuff is just people wanting control over land that is not theirs” but you fail to see that ALL zoning is just government wanting contol over land that is not theirs and when that government abuses its discretion as happens everywhere that stringent zoning laws exist, it is a terrible injustice. Somehow you think that if the government (just people) takes control over someones land, it is fine, which is completely inconsistent with your other statements.
I think everyone who has said it is their land to do with as they want has either said or implied within local zoning requirements.
So yes, it does make complete sense.
If the area has zoning requirements for shelters that require a permit and set backs and all that other stuff (all the same requirements they have in most places) then the owner of the land is free to put up a run in if they meet those requirements.
Same with a dirt bike track. If the local zoning allows a dirt bike track then the owner is more than welcome to put one up. If you want to live some where that there are not any dirt bike tracks (and you are free to trespass all you want 
) then buy your land in an area with zoning that does not allow dirt bike tracks.
Where I built you are not allowed to have pigs or a chicken farm, no open fires, etc etc. My little barn, that my neighbor fought tooth and nail, was allowed by the zoning board so nothing my NIMBY neighbor could do about it.
OP wants to respond ti NIMBY accusations
I get that many of the replies to this thread are those who are upset about the NIMBY mentality. I truly get that. I have, in my 45 years of horse ownership, encountered many who are against horse properties and don’t want to have to deal with issues that can arise from that usage. Fair enough.
This is a VERY restrictive zoning district. We have seen one freedom after another be removed by zoning regs. There is no burning (fine by me) and planning and zoning, using automated aerial surveillance comparisons, will actually seek out unpermitted structures, including horse shades more than 120 square feet. That’s a 10’X12’ shade–enough for one horse. My turnout is dotted with three itty-bity shades that are mostly useless because the herd can’t hang out together. Property owners are not supposed to put up any fencing, including portable panels, without a permit.
The subject property may belong to Mr. Fappani, but he is surrounded by 9 neighbors who were expecting another horse ranch. He enjoys agricultural zoning and the significant tax break that conveys. He has made it clear that he has no intention of using the land as an agricultural property. He is bringing in a severe noise nuisance that is opposed by at least 37 nearby property owners and will reduce their property values.
Sometimes there is a very good reason to say “not in my backyard.” At what point should someone’s desire to go outside the normal parameters of usage be deemed inappropriate? Dirt bikes, like barking dogs, are a constant irritant that need not be tolerated by many because they are enjoyed by a few. This is NOT a grandfathered situation. The horse owners were here first and we are saying we don’t want this new, extraordinarily intrusive, upsetting thing. Many of the residents have had to leave their previous neighborhoods because of encroaching developments.
We have a hearing scheduled for February 14th and Mr. Fappani has hired a lawyer. The neighbors are working to do the same. In the meantime, construction is going on at a furious pace and a wide swath of the sharpest gravel I have ever seen now bisects the public roadside where people have been riding horses for decades.
OP wants to respond to NIMBY comments
I get that many of the replies to this thread are those who are upset about the NIMBY mentality. I truly get that. I have, in my 45 years of horse ownership, encountered many who are against horse properties and don’t want to have to deal with issues that can arise from that usage. Fair enough.
This is a VERY restrictive zoning district. We have seen one freedom after another be removed by zoning regs. There is no burning (fine by me) and planning and zoning, using automated aerial surveillance comparisons, seeks out unpermitted structures, including horse shades more than 120 square feet. That’s a 10’X12’ shade–enough for one horse. My turnout is dotted with three itty-bitty shades that are mostly useless because the herd can’t hang out together. Property owners are not supposed to put up any fencing, including portable panels, without a permit.
The subject property may belong to Mr. Fappani, but he is surrounded by 9 neighbors who were expecting another horse ranch. He enjoys agricultural zoning and the significant tax break that conveys. He has made it clear that he has no intention of using the land as an agricultural property. He is bringing in a severe noise nuisance that is opposed by at least 37 nearby property owners and will reduce their property values.
Sometimes there is a very good reason to say “not in my backyard.” At what point should someone’s desire to go outside the normal parameters of usage be deemed inappropriate? Dirt bikes, like barking dogs, are a constant irritant that need not be tolerated by many because they are enjoyed by a few. This is NOT a grandfathered situation. The horse owners were here first and we are saying we don’t want this new, extraordinarily intrusive, upsetting thing. Many of the residents have had to leave their previous neighborhoods because of encroaching development.
Now I follow the advice of Clinton Anderson about scaring my horses (“Heart attacks are free, so give your horse one.”–and no, I don’t follow all his advice, just that one.) I don’t mind having new things around for my horses to learn about. This is a lot more about the outrageous noise level, and the attraction of more dirt bikes, and the dangerous encounters we already have when they come roaring obliviously down our roads. On a dirt bike you have people who have tunnel vision and can’t hear anything going 60 miles an hour in a residential neighborhood with kids playing.
We have a hearing scheduled for February 14th. Everyone is hiring lawyers. In the meantime, construction is going on at a furious pace and a wide swath of the sharpest gravel I have ever seen now bisects the public roadside where people have been riding horses for decades. I’m saddened that someone who considers himself to be a horseman would treat his fellow horsemen like this. Can’t you just tell your kids no because it’s not fair to the neighbors? This reeks of a complete lack of civility. Just because you might legally be able to do something does not make it right.
[QUOTE=Coyoteco;6819657]
Seriously? It’s not inconsistent to say that “the person owns the land and they want to use it a certain way” and they should be able to, while saying that if a person wants to build a shelter for a horse, he shouldn’t be able to. It it clearly inconsistent to say that one person should be able to use his land as he wants and another should not be able to use his as he wants. Some in this thread are clearly partial to one party over the other - as the low-level government officials seem to be from the facts givenhere. Just eliminate the “zoning” regulations and let everyone do what they want and it clears it all up. You say “If the local zoning allows for that use then the NIMBY stuff is just people wanting control over land that is not theirs” but you fail to see that ALL zoning is just government wanting contol over land that is not theirs and when that government abuses its discretion as happens everywhere that stringent zoning laws exist, it is a terrible injustice. Somehow you think that if the government (just people) takes control over someones land, it is fine, which is completely inconsistent with your other statements.[/QUOTE]
That really is the right of it. Well said.
[QUOTE=Whitfield Farm Hanoverians;6811681]
Well I for one feel for you. I live in Cairo, GA which was getting very famous for having practice tracks for motorcross including Ricky Carmichael who was #1 rider in the world. These tracks are SO LOUD you can’t hear yourself think. They have ruined the serene, quiet, country life that so many people moved out here for. This county has had many lawsuits filed over these tracks. Now while the older ones are grandfathered in, the newer ones have to have at least 1 mile of land OF THEIRS on each side of the outer edge of their tracks or they cannot build them. While this might seem extreme, trust me, there’s nothing so annoying as listening to what sounds like duelling chainsaws every day & one mile only dampens the sound somewhat.
One of the worst things about this is that anyone who would build a track near a quiet neighborhood is normally not the type of person you can reason with. They didn’t give a damn about encroaching on your personal air space in the first place & so probably don’t really care about your loss of peace & quiet.
In the counties surrounding the area where I live we have acres & acres of open land with NO HOMES & NO PEOPLE but the motorcross folks didn’t choose these areas. They choose the populated areas. One track actually put up lights & raced past midnight all weekend. Their neighbors are people who had put all their savings into a small boarding barn & tack shop. They lost it practically overnight. Their land is not worth anything because they cannot give it away next door to this track. They were there before the track. That is just plain wrong anyway you look at it.[/QUOTE]
We can hear the bikes from over two miles away, relentlessly, for hours on end and it’s likely to get so much worse. Before any of us knew this was in the works we had noticed a marked increase in dirt bike traffic on local roads. We have to work hard to maintain them ourselves and in addition to the asshat behavior there were giant donuts being carved into the roads. After a rain, they’d really live it up. I don’t know who these riders are, but it has created a hostile environment for those of us who live here and it’s not helped by the idea of someone coming in and deliberately creating a noise and dust nuisance for their entertainment.
At the forest boundaries, we have to step our horses over narrow steel barriers about 16" to 20" high, designed to keep motorcycles out. Then we have to avoid the dirt bikers who have cut the fences and are tearing around illegally. I have seen tens of thousands of acres in the Arizona desert be ruined by this “motor sport.” The practices of thoughtless motocross and ATV riders have caused the closure of access to more places than I can count.
I have an ATV safety card and I’m a gun owner. I’m also very careful not to ride or shoot where it’s inappropriate because it’s the right thing to do.
I wasn’t going to reply but I can’t help it.
My husband and I have a 9-acre farm in a lovely rural area of Pennsylvania. When we moved in, we noticed that the field behind our back field (which separates the area we use for pasture from the neighbors property line) had a track on it.
About a year after we moved in, those neighbors started using it for competitive motocross and ATV riding. As in, on the weekends, it would be 8 hours a day of motorcycles and ATVs running (none with mufflers) with usually 4 to 5 people a time on the track. A friend of the neighbor was using it to teach lessons.
I am not against people using their property for their own enjoyment but it literally drove us and all our neighbors nuts! Even with the house completely shut up, you couldn’t hear yourself think! The dust would roll in waves across our property because the track wasn’t watered. When they would bulldoze it to change up the track, it would change the water runoff (it was in a swamp area), and water would pour into our back field, flooding it.
Our horses never had a problem with it, but forget about doing a lesson on the weekend. We couldn’t hear an instructor through the noise. As both my husband and I said, we wouldn’t have minded if it was 2 or 3 hours, but it went on all day.
While our township does not have noise ordinances, Pennsylvania is very strict about land use and wetlands development. And a good friend of ours happens to be a county land conservation officer. A year later and with the Army Corp of Engineers involved, the track was required to turn in a plan that would alleviate all the runoff and dust issues. And pay a hefty fine.
However, long story short, they never started up the track again. We and all our neighbors now enjoy peace and quiet.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion but I can certainly understand where the OP is coming from. When people move out to rural areas they accept farming (ever hear the noise of giant combines harvesting–we do!), farm animals (like our donkey braying at 5 am), and other thing associated with the farm life. But somehow a racetrack doesn’t fall into my vision of the rural farm life most of us enjoy.
Thank you, Kelly. That’s what we’re looking at here and I hope it’s resolved the same way. In Northern AZ, outside of Flagstaff, there is a huge designated area for Off Road Vehicles. It’s a blast to go and ride there. Everyone out at the ORV has a common interest, they’re in the right place and have the blessing of the county and the community to go for it. I’ve ridden ATVs out there myself. 
Last summer, someone had the bright idea to propose a Motocross track in the infield of our county arena, where rodeos, horse trials, and the county fair are held. I don’t know if this insanity has any traction, but why would anyone want to mix these uses? Besides the very real danger of mixing horses and dirt bikes, both mainly operated by youngsters, it again brings the noise factor into play.
I’d be so thrilled to have municipalities designate a motocross track wherever you have an industrial neighborhood. Keep it by the railroad crossings and landfills and city bus garages. It would bring in people who want to have fun and might revitalize the vicinity. Noise pollution is real. I recall a statistic about a single motorcycle with a modified muffler driving through Paris at night waking up 200,000 people. That’s just wrong.
I am going to address some of the comments I have read here.
I own one of the homes bordering (and I do mean bordering) this track. It falls within 200 feet of my home.
All of the homeowners bordering the land owned their properties long before Fappani purchased the 20 acres. I remember, when considering which property to purchase, asking the real estate agent what the odds are that we would retain such a peaceful, beautiful view. As we stood on my roof deck, he pointed specifically to the 20 acres south of my property and said nobody can build on that parcel because it’s in a floodplain and they wouldn’t be able to get the necessary permits. I’m sure I am not the only person who was told this. I purchased this property in March 2009. Fappani purchased the acreage in February 2012.
There are processes in place for changing zoning and for building on a site. Fappani failed to follow the process, and only retroactively started trying to acquire the necessary permits. If allowed, that sets a dangerous precedent: build first, disregard procedures and current landowners, and ask forgiveness later if you are caught.
He is not some poor, misunderstood, good neighbor just enjoying use of his land. This is the same individual who was having his crew tap into our shared well WITHOUT OUR CONSENT during construction of the track and fence. He has disregarded even the most common of courtesies.
Once he was caught, he claimed the track was pre-existing. Aerial photographs I amassed over the last handful of years prove he is lying.
In this forum, it appears the people who have been most adamant about Fappani’s right to use his land as he sees fit are motocross riders (in the majority).
Consider this scenario: A nonsmoker is sitting in a nonsmoking section of a cafe enjoying lunch. A smoker arrives and sits at an adjacent table at the edge of the nonsmoking section, lights a cigarette, and begins blowing the smoke in the direction of the nonsmoker. The nonsmoker asks the smoker to stop, the smoke is flowing to his table, but the smoker disregards the request and tells him he’ll just have to get used to the smell.
Most smokers’ sense of smell is deadened (olfactory fatigue) so they aren’t even aware of the nuisance. Similarly, those who ride motorcycles and dirt bikes are unaware of the nuisance it does create to an established residential and equestrian area.
We all built our neighborhood here with the intent to preserve the look, feel, and sound of the serenity of the desert; we have an established standard here. One person should not be allowed to circumvent the proper process and disrupt the neighborhood. The wildlife I once enjoyed, the tranquility of my surroundings, the sanctuary of my home, have all been compromised by one egocentric individual. It is the same for my neighbors. If we wanted to live next door to the erratic whine of the dirt bikes and the dust coating our patios and finding its way into our homes, we would have SOUGHT a track to live next to.
~Melissa
Motocross riders being in the majority here or not really has nothing to do with it. (FYI, I am not a motocross rider.)
If this person is not following the laws in place to build there then help the people enforcing those laws prevent him from not following them in the future.
Past that, anything anyone is doing legally on their land is their right. Do I think it is wrong to intentionally annoy your neighbor? Yes. But past that, just because some realtor told you that your house would always be peaceful really means nothing in allowing your new neighbor to do as they (legally) want to do with their land. You are not, I am sure, the first person to have been told something like that by a realtor.
Again, when I went to build my little farmette on my legally approved piece of land the neighbor to the land did exactly what your are doing. He insisted that I should not be allowed to build because we would “ruin his piece of the country”. His argument was like yours; the street had always been quiet and he had always had a nice view and the wildlife would walk thru this field and he could watch them and the town allowing me to build a house and a barn there would ruin his peaceful enjoyment of his land.
Thank goodness the zoning board laughed at him and told him that if he wanted to control what happened to the land around his house he needed to buy the land around his house.
Per your own post, Melissa, you had three years to purchase that piece of land that now someone else has bought. You chose not to.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6876352]
Per your own post, Melissa, you had three years to purchase that piece of land that now someone else has bought. You chose not to.[/QUOTE]
It was not listed for sale, and the floodplain issues should have prevented the ability to build.
Dirt bikes make considerably more nerve grinding noise than a few horses.
People can build in flood plains. Lots of things are in what is considered a flood plain. Was the realtor implying protected wet lands? Do you know that is the case or are you still going on what the realtor told you?
You are right, dirt bikes more noise. That was not the point, which you are clearly choosing to ignore. Let me explain it. If you want control over a piece of property, buy it instead of insisting what you want is what should happen to land owned by someone else. My neighbor was not worried about freaking noise. He did not want my horses, barn or house in what he considered his land. You are doing the same thing he did. NIMBY but I will not put my money were my want is.
The land clearly became available some how, since it was sold. I am sure you could have researched the last owner and contacted them…
Not at all. I am no fan of moto-mud. ASPHALT is for RACING, DIRT is for POTATOES. But one person’s passion is another person’s nusisance. There are plenty of people who are offended by the smells from horse and cattle farms. That doesn’t mean they have the right to kick them out.
Similarly, those who ride motorcycles and dirt bikes are unaware of the nuisance it does create to an established residential and equestrian area.
And those who ride horses are similarly unaware of the nuisance thir horses create for the neighbors.
The wildlife I once enjoyed, the tranquility of my surroundings, the sanctuary of my home, have all been compromised by one egocentric individual. It is the same for my neighbors. If we wanted to live next door to the erratic whine of the dirt bikes and the dust coating our patios and finding its way into our homes, we would have SOUGHT a track to live next to.
Then you should have bought the land first.
There seem to be two entirely separate issues here, which the OP and now Melissa, are weaving together.
The first is whether or not a property owner has the right to put his property to whatever use he sees fit, whether his neighbors like it or not. IMO, anyone who says he does not have that right doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Like trubandloki said, if you want to control what happens on a piece of property, you need to buy it. Period, the end.
When I was younger, my parents bought a lot in a development put in around a lake. When they started construction, the next-door neighbors had a fit. They made all the same arguments trubandloki’s neighbor made. “It will block my view.” “It’s too close to my house.” “They’re going to cut down some trees to build the house and it will disturb the wildlife.” Blah, blah, blah. Hey, if they didn’t want anyone to build on that lot, then they should have bought it themselves. They didn’t, yet, for some reason, they seemed to believe that they should have some say over what happened to it.
The second is the accusation that Andrea Fappani isn’t following proper zoning laws, is lying about the construction (and you say you have proof), and stole your water. Hey, if that’s the case, go to court. Sue the SOB. File complaints with the zoning commission. That’s how the system works.
I remember, when considering which property to purchase, asking the real estate agent what the odds are that we would retain such a peaceful, beautiful view. As we stood on my roof deck, he pointed specifically to the 20 acres south of my property and said nobody can build on that parcel because it’s in a floodplain and they wouldn’t be able to get the necessary permits.
When I was a kid, we lived in a new house with woods and a stream across the street. My parents consdered buying the vacat lot across the street, but the builder assured them that the land was too wet, and no one would/could build there.
Three years later there were 4 houses across the street.
Anyone who takes a builder/developer’s word about what will and won’t be built in the future is naive, to say the least.
I totally agree with the OP. It is going to be expensive for you all to fight this - but - it is what neighborhood planning is all about - keeping unwanted stuff out and protecting property values.
Like the guy down the street that found a way to get a trailer in - you bet it took down property values. And then there was the family that wanted to sub divide 5 acres. Nope - no way - not enough well water. No one would sign off on it.
Cause their use negatively affected us all.
We were also successful in getting some target shooting folks shut down. YES the rifle shots were legal - but a total nuisance in the neighborhood. The law could do nothing for us - but the guy was a renter and a felon at that. A few visits from the Po Po and calls to the land owner took care of it.
Hope you all win back your peace and find friends in high places.
I am sure NIMBY is what got us most of our national and local parks. Heck, it is what zoning is all about - setting aside lands for different uses.
I mean really folks. NIMBYS are cool too.
[QUOTE=hurleycane;6877208]
I totally agree with the OP. It is going to be expensive for you all to fight this - but - it is what neighborhood planning is all about - keeping unwanted stuff out and protecting property values.
Like the guy down the street that found a way to get a trailer in - you bet it took down property values. And then there was the family that wanted to sub divide 5 acres. Nope - no way - not enough well water. No one would sign off on it.
Cause their use negatively affected us all.
We were also successful in getting some target shooting folks shut down. YES the rifle shots were legal - but a total nuisance in the neighborhood. The law could do nothing for us - but the guy was a renter and a felon at that. A few visits from the Po Po and calls to the land owner took care of it.
Hope you all win back your peace and find friends in high places.
I am sure NIMBY is what got us most of our national and local parks. Heck, it is what zoning is all about - setting aside lands for different uses.
I mean really folks. NIMBYS are cool too.[/QUOTE]
There is a HUGE difference between doing something illegal (a felon having firearms) and doing something against zoning (subdividing when water isn’t available) and a noise irritant. You didn’t stop the shooting because zoning didn’t allow it, you stopped it because it was a felon, and because the landowner didn’t want to tick off the neighbors.
If the zoning allows it, tough luck. If it is against zoning, then fight it, and you should prevail. If the motocross was not a grandfathered item, the neighbors should win.
But while you’re thinking that NIMBYs are cool, take a look at plenty of cases where they aren’t: people moving into areas where farming, horse farms, or dairies have been there for decades, and deciding “yuck, that stinks” or “yuck those horses cause flies” or “yuck, that farmer shouldn’t be able to harvest at times that aren’t convienent to me”… and have managed to drive out farmers and horse breeders (also why some states are having to institute Right to Farm laws).
But when your new neighbor moves in and decides horses are a nuisance, you’ll be okay with that too, right? After all, it’s a nuisance to them, right?
What I think is wrong with the original post here is that the OP is trying to “out” AF to the horse world!
Would she like it if a neighbor took a supposed zoning problem into her work world? This is a matter that belongs before a local government board not on an international message board for horse people!
And yes, I have a motocross track within a couple miles of my home and we never notice it is there! And no, I have no connection to AF!
On our farm, we have both a motocross track, and a shooting range. Neither are for public use though-just personal and friends. The shooting range is a half mile from the pastures, and the motocross track shared as a horse trail, but again, just for our horses. The horses couldn’t care less about the noise. We also have timber land here. When we cut any timber, a lot of the people who own waterfront 1/2 acre lots, that surround our farm, complain about the way it looks. When I ask them if they would be willing to buy it for what timber growth for a couple of generations would sell for, and let it sit there without ever doing anything else with the land, I get no takers. So far no complaints about the shooting and dirt bikes.
I’ve found the best way to deal with neighbors you don’t like is to buy them out.
There was a public motocross track here about 15 miles away that operated for a few years, but the EPA or Army Corp of Engineers or something like that shut them down because of too much runoff into surrounding areas. It sounds like your idiot neighbor won’t last as long as the one here did. In the meantime, get ready to purchase the land, because something else will come up in the future with it.
Never buy land because of the way other land around you, that you don’t own, is now.
Here’s a link to the track that was shut down here. Do some more searching about it, and you will probably find some useful information. Bare dirt, and watershed area don’t mix.
I think the point I was making is pretty clear. There is a reason to set zones and to go to court - even if it is your neighbor.
Noise is no problem for you?? Really?? I know of a little trailer park where folks of limited income live with little space between them. And on hot days tempers would flare over competing blaring radios… mariachi on one side, heavy metal on the other and then the frightened elderly in between. No one would turn it down and the cops came constantly. A real nuisance.
SO terms of the rent by the owner became if you played your radio too loud - you were evicted.
The gun shooting felon was never caught with the gun by the police. So he would shoot it over and over anyway. At a target near the end of the property where kids played.
The police did inform us as long as the bullet did not cross the property line - the shooting was legal (maybe not by the felon).
WHat got them out of the house and out of our hood was our calls to the out of state owner.
There are ways to influence people.
ANd bolding in support of my stance: I am sure NIMBY is what got us most of our national and local parks.
