PZ-3 Z2017101 BOS REVISED REPORT.PDF

Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date: February 7, 2018 (Continued from January 17, 2018)
Case #/Title: Z2017101 – Corral Kraft, LLC
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant/Owner: Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado
& Bolen/Cecelia Tiensvold
Request: Major Amendment to a Special Use Permit (SUP) Z2015024,
for a Cottage Industry
Site Location: Generally located approximately 600’ north of the northeast
corner of 44th St. and Pinnacle Vista Dr. the Cave Creek area
Site Size: Approximately 0.6 acres of a 2.4 acre parcel
County Island Status: Yes (City of Phoenix)
Additional
Comments: The purpose of the SUP Amendment is to allow the cutting of
steel pipe as part of the onsite business operation. The
appropriateness of the land use and existing business
operation approved under Z2015024 is not being
reconsidered as part of this request.
A violation case (V201601446) was opened on 10/11/2016
due to citizen complaint of onsite fabrication (cutting of steel
pipe). A judgement by the Hearing Officer was reached on
7/13/2017 finding the property owner responsible for
use/activity outside the scope of approved zoning (cutting of
steel pipe).
The 300’ Opposition/Support map is included as an
attachment. The opposition received did not trigger the
Super Majority Vote which is triggered by opposition of 20% or
greater of property acres in area and/or number of parcels
within 300’ of the subject property. The percentage of
opposed parcel acreage is 4.66%, with percentage of
opposed parcels is 6.67%. This map has been updated since
the last BOS hearing to include the adjacent owner to the
east of the subject site as in support for this case. Staff has
received 20 signatures in opposition and 15 signatures in
support. Within 300’ of the subject parcel there is one person
opposed, and seven persons in support.
February 7, 2018
Z2017101
Page 1 of 3

Commission
Recommendation: On 11/30/17, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of Z2017101 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘k’:
Provided the following conditions are met:
a. Development of the site shall comply with the approved substantial conformance
Z2015024 Site Plan entitled “Tiensvold Special Use Permit”, consisting of one (1) full-size
sheet, dated stamped approved on December 7, 2015 except as modified by the
following conditions. The applicant must provide an updated site plan within 30 days of
Board of Supervisors approval to label the enclosed 800 sq. ft. shop and update the
engineering seal per the Engineering comments.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative Report entitled,
“Amendment to SUP Z2015024”, consisting of 3 pages, stamped received October 9, 2017
except as modified by the following conditions.
c. Amendments to the site plan and narrative report shall be processed as a revised
application in accordance with Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Article 304.9.
d. The applicant/property owner shall submit a ‘will serve’ letter from Rural Metro for fire
protection services for the site.
e. This Special Use Permit shall expire 10 years from the date of approval by the Board of
Supervisors with case Z2015024 (October 21, 2025) for a period of 90 or more consecutive
days, or upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first.
f. The applicant/owner shall submit a written report outlining the status of the development
at the end of 5 years from the date of approval of case Z2015024 by the Board of
Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine whether the Special
Use Permit remains in compliance with the approved conditions.
g. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for initiating a
revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
h. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the
property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of
application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any
condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert
to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and
agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, or the
expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date
of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no
diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due
to such revocation or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit
enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit
is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if
the Special Use Permit had never been granted.
February 7, 2018
Z2017101
Page 2 of 3

i. The requirement for the solid screen wall is waived with this Cottage Industry approval.
j. The following Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The engineered grading and drainage plans submitted have an expired seal.
Resubmittal of the engineer’s plans needs to be with their updated signature, date
signed, and registration expiration date.
2. The site is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Zone AO – Shallow
Flooding (1’ depth)). A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for any development
on the site including storage of materials.
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed building, and with
sound attenuation measures as may be necessary so that noise emanating from steel
cutting on the site does not exceed 55 dB as measured outside any property line.
Presented by: Ray Banker, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren Gérard, AICP, Deputy Director
Attachments: 11/30/17 P&Z Packet (65 pages)
11/30/17 P&Z Memo w/attachments (35 pages)
11/30/17 P&Z Minutes Excerpt (10 pages)
Additional opposition documents received (4 pages)
1/17/18 BOS Memo w/ attachments (7 pages)
300’ Opposition/Support map (1 page)
February 7, 2018
Z2017101
Page 3 of 3

Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: Z2017101 – Corral Kraft, LLC
Meeting Date: November 30, 2017
Agenda Item: 5
Supervisor District: 3
Applicant: Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq., Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado &
Bolen
Owner: Cecelia Tiensvold
Request: Major Amendment to a Special Use Permit (SUP) Z2015024, for a
Cottage Industry
Site Location: Generally located approximately 600’ north of the northeast corner
of 44th St. and Pinnacle Vista Dr. the Cave Creek area
Site Size: Approximately 0.6 acres of a 2.4 acre parcel
Density: N/A
County Island: Yes (City of Phoenix)
County Plan: Rural Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac)
Municipal Plan: City of Phoenix – Large Lot (1-2 d.u./ac.)
Municipal Comments: None received to date
Support/Opposition: 4 documents of case support/2 documents of support for business/1
document of opposition
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 1 of 7

Project Summary:
1. The applicant, Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Esq. of Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen is
requesting a Major Amendment to an existing 10 year SUP entitlement (Z2015024) which
was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on October 21, 2015. The
original SUP was for a cottage industry to allow for building material storage area
consisting of pipe, tubing, equipment and delivery to clients via the family owned pick-
up truck and trailer in the Rural-43 zoning district. The property is located immediately
east of 44th Street, south of Dynamite Boulevard, in a one square mile county island in
the north Phoenix area (APN #212-18-022A).
2. The subject business known as Corral Kraft, LLC specifically helps build mare motels,
corrals, and livestock shade structures. There are only 3 employees for the home business
and the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. weekly and 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
on Saturday. The only proposed change is to add a component to the SUP by allowing
cutting of steel pipe/tubing for material preparation. This would take place in a 20’ x 40’
(800 sq. ft.) enclosed sound-proofed structure located adjacent to the existing shop
building. This is further detailed in the attached amendment Narrative Report. It should
be noted that there is an existing violation case under V201601446 for noise resulting from
this activity. The major amendment was submitted to address the violation case on the
property.
Approved Site Plan for Z2015024
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 2 of 7

Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
3. On-site: Rural-43 (SUP) / Single Family Residence & Cottage Industry
North: Rural-43 / Single Family Residence
South: Rural-43/ Single Family Residence
East: Rural-43 / Single Family Residence
West: Arterial then Rural-43 / 44th Street then Single Family Residence
Zoning Map of subject and surrounding parcels
2017 Aerial of subject site and surrounding area
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 3 of 7

Utilities and Services:
4. Water: City of Phoenix
Wastewater: Septic
School District: Cave Creek
Fire: Rural Metro Fire Department
Police: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
5. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
Major Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name Half-width Existing R/W Half-width Proposed R/W Future Classification
N. 44th St. 40 feet 40 feet (no dedication Local
required with this case)
Adopted Plan:
6. Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Rural Development Area (0 – 1 d.u./ac.)
Public Participation Summary:
7. The applicant complied with the Maricopa County Citizen Review Process by notification
through first class mail to adjacent property owners within 300’ of the subject parcels and
interested parties as well as the required posting of the site. There is one opposition from
a neighbor located one property removed from the adjacent northern property to the
subject site. The email received from Ms. S Anne Smith (attached) states issues with noise
generated, livestock being injured or at risk, responds to calls from the Sheriff’s Office,
and the land use not being appropriate for the rural area. There were also 2 documents
received in support of the business and 4 documents received including 2 adjacent land
owners to the north and south of the subject property. The support material mentions that
the business does not generate any or insignificant amounts of noise, they are great
neighbors that help out with needs in an existing equine community, no livestock
disturbance, etc.
8. The applicant provided staff with a detailed Public Participation Results Report on
November 8, 2017 which includes responses to the opposition’s concerns, timeline of
case events, and other information and exhibits. Staff recognizes that this is important for
this case and has included this document as an attachment to the staff report.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
9. N/A
Staff Analysis:
10. Staff is in support of the proposed changes to the existing SUP to allow for cutting of steel
piping/tubing for their business within a sound proofed enclosed building. There is support
from adjacent neighbors immediately to the north and south. The neighbor to the south
and closest to the existing enclosed shop for the metal cutting has expressed their support
and claims no noise generated from this activity or other aspects of the cottage industry
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 4 of 7

operation. The applicant will be required to update the existing approved site plan to
show and label the enclosed sound proof area of the shop and update the engineering
seal on the plans. The pending permit for this building addition (B201707475) will need to
be completed if this amendment is approved. It should be noted that the regulations for
cottage industry provisions have since been amended in the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance (MCZO) where previous requirements (screening, hours of operation, etc.)
can now be considered by the BOS but are not automatic stipulations. The only comment
from Engineering is regarding the expired seal on the plans. This will be required to be
updated if the amendment is approved.
11. Staff is proposing making the following changes and additions to the existing approved
conditions of the original SUP (Z2015024), deleted language shown in strikethrough and
new language shown in bold and underlined:
a. Development of the site shall comply with the Site Plan entitled “Tiensvold Special
Use Permit”, consisting of one (1) full-size sheet, dated June 18, 2015, and
stamped received July 20, 2015 except as modified by the following conditions.
Maximum building square footage associated with this Cottage Industry and
within the SUP area is limited to 800 square feet. Development of the site shall
comply with the approved substantial conformance Z2015024 Site Plan entitled
“Tiensvold Special Use Permit”, consisting of one (1) full-size sheet, dated
stamped approved on December 7, 2015 except as modified by the following
conditions. The applicant must provide an updated site plan within 30 days of
Board of Supervisors approval to label the enclosed 800 sq. ft. shop and update
the engineering seal per the Engineering comments.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the narrative report entitled
“Narrative Report” consisting of two (2) pages, dated July 10, 2015, and stamped
received July 20, 2015, except as modified by the following
conditions. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative
Report entitled, “Amendment to SUP Z2015024”, consisting of 3 pages, stamped
received October 9, 2017 except as modified by the following conditions.
e. This Special Use Permit shall expire 10 years from the date of approval by the Board
of Supervisors with case Z2015024 (October 21, 2025) for a period of 90 or more
consecutive days, or upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. All of the
site improvements shall be removed within 60 days of such termination or
expiration.
f. The applicant/owner shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5 years from the date of approval of case Z2015024 by
the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine
whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance with the approved
conditions.
j. The following Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The engineered grading and drainage plans submitted have an expired
seal. Resubmittal of the engineer’s plans needs to be with their updated
signature, date signed, and registration expiration date.
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 5 of 7

2. The site is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Zone AO – Shallow
Flooding (1’ depth)). A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for any
development on the site including storage of materials.
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed sound
proof building.
Recommendation:
12. For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for
Approval with conditions ‘a’ – ‘k’ of Z2017101.
a. Development of the site shall comply with the approved substantial conformance
Z2015024 Site Plan entitled “Tiensvold Special Use Permit”, consisting of one (1) full-
size sheet, dated stamped approved on December 7, 2015 except as modified
by the following conditions. The applicant must provide an updated site plan
within 30 days of Board of Supervisors approval to label the enclosed 800 sq. ft.
shop and update the engineering seal per the Engineering comments.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled, “Amendment to SUP Z2015024”, consisting of 3 pages, stamped received
October 9, 2017 except as modified by the following conditions.
c. Amendments to the site plan and narrative report shall be processed as a revised
application in accordance with Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Article 304.9.
d. The applicant/property owner shall submit a ‘will serve’ letter from Rural Metro for
fire protection services for the site.
e. This Special Use Permit shall expire 10 years from the date of approval by the Board
of Supervisors with case Z2015024 (October 21, 2025) for a period of 90 or more
consecutive days, or upon termination of the use, whichever occurs first. All of the
site improvements shall be removed within 60 days of such termination or
expiration.
f. The applicant/owner shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5 years from the date of approval of case Z2015024
by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to
determine whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance with the
approved conditions.
g. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance.
h. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the
applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on
the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 6 of 7

with any condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the
property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is,
therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to
comply with any conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not
reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or
possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation
or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value
of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted
and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the
Special Use Permit had never been granted.
i. The requirement for the solid screen wall is waived with this Cottage Industry
approval.
j. The following Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The engineered grading and drainage plans submitted have an expired
seal. Resubmittal of the engineer’s plans needs to be with their updated
signature, date signed, and registration expiration date.
2. The site is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Zone AO – Shallow
Flooding (1’ depth)). A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for any
development on the site including storage of materials.
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed sound
proof building.
Presented by: Ray Banker, Planner
Reviewed by: Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Vicinity Map (1 page)
Approved Site Plan – Z2015024 (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page)
Narrative Report (3 pages)
Engineering memo (2 pages)
MCESD memo (1 page)
MCSO email (1 page)
Opposition/Support documents (11 pages)
Public Participation Results Report (37 pages)
Agenda Item: 5 – Z2017101
Page 7 of 7

ONE
MARICOPA COUNTY STOP
SHOP
1 I 11111111 a . P. INF . 7 • •4041r&--Mr-
p
.
214.16421D
IA.
I * .N. ,
'• * telt" ....,_ _ ,
P 1 . --
..
I i ,
i ; lir 1 1
111 .... • i - . _
,...—.6 ,
I I I a > ' I
= Aar
-.. . 1
1
1 •1X . " *._. '
c
1 1 4 I
v I,
i. . .
, -
" . ; •
t '
1 NI
.,. +le- , .....-• I• 4/""i. , [ ' t ell
:* .161.14101 1 P
*, . . t •• Z_ C',1 i
' 1,
' r ilk
_. 4
i . . , A.
•
or 1,
A MINIM
Application Name: Corral Kraft, LLC
Legal Description
TO5N RO4E 031, T5N RO4E 31
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
480.427,2866
LYDIA PEIRCE LINSMEIER for CARPENTER! HAZLEWOQP)(AggARWPPROARWAN.com
Z2017101
Case Address Parcel Primary: 212-18-022A
27613 N 44TH St
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
Generated November 9, 2017 16:48 PM Gross Acres: 2.4 approx. Map scale 1:1,541
Aerials Sep-Nov 2014
Supervisor District No.3
AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SUP Z2015024
WE
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ

ONE
MARICOPA COUNTY STP
SHOP
212-18-017 - Vitid o _ 1 ? 7,
.7
."Ih er L p 6' V07
7-
212-18-015A 212-18-0155 . r, i 1 4: co ,I 1 c71
C - LYP ilOO '- ''.7 - ----
'-
212-18-0143 212-18-0140k c 212-18-019 ,.
<7 (Tr I
2
..o c 212-18-013A 212-18-0135 212-18-020C 212 -18439 ' • in T-5
(N1 "0 -
±
.'
212-18-0125 .---. CP' '
212-15-0120
212-18-C111G 212-18-022B :--: •:75'
212-18-0105 ..om=a--m--w ts1
212-18-011H N 212-16.1022A • .c to Z
i al • N__I17777C•1211 r,Z5 I
, VA
I 11-7( It'i ea-.
1
i 58423‘157
E Boni Tree Dr
212-18.008A 212-13-0095 2i vis-42.4A
-__ --- --F-Pinnacle-Vista Dr
i
I il
Eantin ,-
I u-,
I .1. E Blickhc,111 I I
Z
I
i i 212-12-014Z
E Quail Track Di
i
E rail Track Dr
1 212-12-008V
E Bajada Rcl
Application Name: Corral Kraft, LLC
Legal Description
TO5N RO4E 031, T5N RO4E 31
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
2
LYDIA PEIRCE LINSMEIER for CARPENTER! HAZLEWOC1124 8446PPAARIKV-4.com Z2017101
Case Address Parcel Primary: 212-18-022A
27613 N 44TH St
CAVE CREEK AZ 853 31
Generated November 9,2017 16:53 PM Gross Acres: 2.4 approx. Aerials Map scale Sep-Nov 1:7200 2014
Supervisor District No.3
AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SUP Z2015024
WE
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ

OF) t--•T 11IIR II . . pr.:
. ,, • i 03-31-5-0. \ , ) 1 f I j 1 1 1 , ; RECEIVE._
40 MAP ENGINEERING c.G., si SOLTAIE I 11 NT „,.. A -' 1 )11 'L.
01210 450-292-1075 01,1 eAr' irorLs 1, / Gap., '11111FGHTar '... Iff , 1 I 1
E NA'S. Gra. NORCOOrr 55213 CLIKTDGARNERGRODPAELOON I LP U.RES / /60NC. 19' --s-- I
11110100+ VICINITY ENGINEER CROUP AZ AS-.51.11LT 01 / _ I L '1 ,
CMG. ATTG E. 5.4 PESA. PHONE (U) 1 T F O S AS 5 ‘.., 1 , , I J 1 0
711A AS TION 04-27-1 \ \ A 0 0
61 PROVIDED 1133 1712 2130 &CARD CURRENT \ \
v• 6 . PROJECT, PROJECT PECIFICA DESIGN. DATF• . I 11 I \ \ 0 ' \
RESIDENTIAL STATE 0150I1 S I -'' ''
AC) AG) P13-4.3 DANIA) TABLE VOLUME NTS THE 1)03 •-.,
11011. Mr 001120LIR (2E5E1 ZONING" UsE SF (CF) OR OF ARIZONA CONSISTENT 1402 010316017 n3-11-2216 0 9..
011 GOER CONTOUR OF (2A-900 LAND 43500 SULTINKIESE E5 DAMN TR. 712 2455 CHARGE DESIGN 00100 .
TOP CONCOCT GRADE ern. CONSBETE HI. EWING MCP. Sr 55331 113475 sF (ON. IREOURie0 WORK TE 00 '006 001' 1-/CrTh. -... I
LEGEND A2 106504 PROPOSED PROPOSED 0.114.5 A AT THE OF FOR / • ".... \ \
CCM A NEW TEREPOLD NTH CREEK, DATA 211-115.22.4 MEN 12. OPE CORNER so.. ENGINEOF DESIGN 0000000 3011E / I I I -,.. -,, L , \ •
10 0 di r, RN X 2 a AREA: NOME DENCEMARK 0/1-• ELE,T2214179115 RETENTION lo OYE RULE .
X - -77- OWNER EMMA 27513 CAVE SITE APR: GROSE NEr 00000040 ANO DISTURB. .UND PROPER77 0Aser 1 2 3 RESPONSIBLE TE 1110 71-11' -MARICOPACOUNTYSCONFINEDTOAREVEALONLYADDOESNOTRELJEVEME, RESPONSEEELJTES /n ‘.... 2I11-15-3020 001-47
_ '0016 CHARGE OF 711AT or LD A-e„, 'TOD, R.LinornAL
CF IS PLAN 110 AN AND REVIEW 1.E 0 2. I 305N 20111110
-MK sn 4 t7 poINT OF I 14-30-301 Mr 20 .. \ sr)
31, •95253 OHS SITE. row.. NORLEAST RANGE NERIDIAN, OESORIP •- Iff,.,, 71101 RESPONSIBLE 101 OF J.r,ER / -- -,, sA7A-., \ , (mos I 1
ARIZONA THE rloPERTY COUNTY. THE EEONING" souTH THE REGISTRATION, T /1 1" \
PLAN EASING. FOR AREA ws-TA OF NORTH. AND PARTICDLARLY 0'.7,tr.4 OF LTNE KEEL FEET: To DECLARE sEcnom 0I10 WORK, ,..r7, \ ,.._ 1115PLA.Y LT;
SECTION 3 .+111.25-5E_t_TD2.37SEP1 2 100 TOGLOLD PAMILICOPA PORTON 5 EASE POW SouTH I05.01.1 mEr DECLARATION DERCSD 000 OF CLINTON SCA& _, ITZ
„.. PERMIT COUNTY, ETON 5015 1011011011 PROPOSED. TORISNIP 2.2...0.. 722 2.53.65 105012 IN .17.,* Ss._ 'O'F
OF DESCRIPTION ENE FOR mo)000. OF M1 WEI MORE TO SA0 WEST E.S, HEREBY DEFIND TECHNICAL STANDARDS. 2010)10011 ENGINEER ,..„7,,,,,,7
USE AM ON ADD ARE DESCRIPTION-SUP or IN 31. SALT :r.5r'.531 ALONG FEEL USK I HAW 1 NAVE: \ 1=11111Arg
DRAINAGE QUARTER ST. LOT 1 1 TO P03001 22 RECORDS LOCATED ARIZONA, FEET 131 111315935" STAT'55. ,
SPECIAL MARICOPA 44TH OE 2 STRUCTURES PREPARED 577100701503 USE Tor 22, SEOTION 0100 000 •- 2I 30 CONENUINO 03 017101er - \
22015024 1253 OF EASIN 2 PROJECT REQUEST op PALE BEING OF 111E COUNTY. ,140;.20 21 WEST, NOR. NOM SE ,1., 05 54 i 1r 1 , 1 \ PAAGNO.OAZING N. 1
N. EF 52DE .0(22.55-X-C-1.1.24-2E2 ALL DENG NEW SPECIAL LEGAL poem. 79, QUARTER 01 00010001 --••••---- 51.,,0550,n LOT sou. BECIIINING. 3 srrnd
AND NORTHEAST 27613 20920. A FOUL AMON& 0051 3100000 AS GO THEME 51743•Sr THENCE THENCE GEN. OF LOS - • AM
TIENSVOLD G.F.SJI.13.8.M., . r') I 113' TILICH 1 14
. 1 Rem.. 5002s2 1.704-53.0 - 'IA/ . .--4 O o . I'.. ,r-, ... L12715,2000
FOR THE. fowArt SF)12.17/12)1125) 0100)10 "lifilM=Illiiir AbalMIEMPF. 1001101.7. ). . MEOW SHOP NEDIS-13.7'
GRADING OF THE usE .2/.7 SASH 111210_SELNA55_517.11 PEA 655 voiTom. 0.____i_.,.... • \ .„. - 'i g3/ --,
OF CALCULATIONS SF SP1,AL _T- Asuvw,A5 1) SHERIFF 0.0111 1 SEA00 .-1 7,4 i I II.V'''"*'"(iI\I 1.-. j. 1 T I 7 T ooN 1 I ; uer•I' - 1
PORTION R4E (mu (022911-1 2013. MAPROSWATELY 0.0 ENISTING . e s • 1 . ..,. .,.F.? Li 1 r r j_/.ff I s.. I 11' (R)
100504 FOR - 15. rInc COMET EENT 0000100 y 00A51 -71--- \ . •,.. TTIITT
A 4 L.7 _ 3-NAN MUM PROWESS CCHEM ellnE UNE O 203405000101 NOTE '''''' 1 iL I IS , si _ ,,,, '0: 025.01
RETENTION 121' OF or _ 2010020 PROVIDERS se CEINUR7 NAROOPA . 9 ME . E T IS oTtiv7 AND .-"' - ----- - • V, -..L ----1-' 1 n5LorrouoculuorT, 111
APOT _ p.10-E,ALL VOLUME INFOS/MILS-MN COED car coo APS SPTC p. ku AS W HILIPAINT ...-.. ISMS ....,... -- 00I034E 35 .--- FF=1799.40 - ../ 15
ARFA Ter .._ G4-1195 VOLUME FOLIO HYDRANT 0 9.r SLNSIATALLT OESIGGE RELIGION BORN 00 . . . '' 92 Er.. HOUSE HE10.913. ...., -17 -1 „, c . . A1' 17'
RAGE IN IRE ' AT P11.111A.LS F MU IFS 00E-- 33' ES ilaili 54
24, =Mr LOC.. 090122130-5L UTILITY o.0000 TELEPHONE ELECTRIC SERER 10+00 15E NERNEsr oeu1N0 AS DE GRAN ?Z 95 ... -, SORTING CONC. 5
4.,.00 5 Pr..1 FIRE 000111 ANSI grir,74,-,,,i,G.,47.s,W, LOETRecren MOTOR PROJECT. TO REGUE.SNTS. „,„.,E ------. 212-11-0221 resorgrALL Ro-TT 921 _. Eascm NI
,2 FILM SUE MAP ....,',?..,99'..,Irr...29. APPRO.) PLONS. Fj 211.1. E ,,, .01/1Cn 1 -
1FG SF FL THis FIRM BEER 01001 Ile DEMOTED 0 APS 121 .73',7 1 .-- / 1... Gr41 022011
2j.20,..„750 ON II1.,T9.9.9'.°1* PA 4 • ,uNIND CERTIFICATION THE THE MIEN FOR AS COuNte _ 3-3• / 231'. ,K;--- , . 11„ ,,,,,.,,, ' 92 SI
.-00. IF COMPLY IRE 00 CERTIFICATION /Gs MTN 51PRONELIELIT MA 09501 as 2 N.I. IT.I r .9,1 , /-•/, L_ '\--- 50"
INFORMATION SF 5 , GARAGE -53. DISTRICT T. THE THI .U... .r.:9-9 rEINCION .oCOPA . 50500)500 80-..0 41? 75.1 ..j" .,.. ,.-: P,6 ,. ,-../ r''' dvf
DESCRIPTION 111.10/GoN 11.4- CALCULATIONS 31 4. 259 4,50 DISTRICT LIGHTING OF ON ...ES PH ri9r,„;'&72-1' DETELOGENT THE 1730010110E TESTING on \ -1--- B 950 ag;10.23.11
,02.„%sP0,I1,14L.1E.E,A IRDN'TN9L. 1068. - MUSD DETACHES ,.. , 5011.L PETER EI6OIN00 112 r FLOOR EDO. NO 001 ......_ .A.T. AGOORDANcr AND GILL FER ANT / , as i 95 55 PI s
00030.1100, AREA 5,0,5 .rL7 65507252 OPEETT RE01100 ANTI 00 AS-BUILT . pLANS 100 P1571•017ED. ONL SYSTOE HOURS L F ..••• ,..,- / / _ -
LEGAL SURVEY RUNES PrE 551 AREA DOMINO COSTING 7559,0,0 SCHOOL OUTDOOR 10110210000 ORPRAHLE FINISH GEC. R.K.D .., 6.01;;, SOTLE el 114001 ENS. .r 21 A, ,c6b..., / - -
vz P. F.9. 01 LOT IHA oAr5 RIF ALL EN.. ,I",..,_ " 19 ... 1. A. a C. ' •V .,..., .••• / ,
nee I - ----. GorN
,,,0„ WAVY MUGS. 50 TO NATE.. DFILATOD TINE OF ARMY, -141:00 STALL 2010 SITALL EGG THE FAL MATIRLSS SNAIL T. L-_ __ u - 4,•, --- 2---- -"" \ ,, TATTL To
030113 ,-, DEPTHS STANDARDS os.e.u.noes ATTNiN 715 ... IX GOWN EXE,9071011. 70 i3E 0.10.71. ORGIOL 410010 9Rn...so. 'PIE FOR OF AS RPORTS 02202,,,,, T.T.0, HAVE THE OF 00I0. 2_ „ FENcE
51110 134 TEST PROSEIMUNAL TM 111:11M114.1 PRIOR FLOOR ETA. Of CALOULADONS AMA QUALWCA111. soor iNsPECTOR CONTRACToR INSPECTION PROPOE FOR NOTE--ROCK INCONFORMANCE REOUIRENO175 ...... r'OPY Z-4 BASIN --: 2 [-0300010 RIEMAN
IT. 020I2012 LIE 1111E DRAIN MIER RUT STANDARD 0000 Sueurom TO INSPECTIONS orciN77R, CONSTIGSTION 0210Ti/RUALI • \ •,,.. „ . BASIN LINN
RFAIDENT)K 0,00 Beau 00000 APPROVAL ,1111,IN LIARICOPA FINISHEI RATES PROOF 71. REG5TPRED APPROVAL FM, OR PEGf NATERPE INSPECTORS SETNICES KARI." , \ \
or 110.12. 0.111-Bneel 0.11.1S REGISTERED INSPECITION WOE Eosois *MEMO BE Erne pAATT 34D ENGINEER. , PROPER... DRAINAGE SLADILEAHOPI. THE EVENOTA5 ,7:,-- cHAIN \ = ,___ "--- REIENTION 130702-94.5
SPFPLAI 000010001105 ReGIGION ...IN. OPAINADE FOR CONTACT FORM MEN PERCOLATION COUNTY LOSS. 200I0.0911 FOR SHALL MM. 350 PARIS CREWEL or DERIFEESULTS T. TAT/ TO • -... 0
24 SOMA. 3oramoll AFRONA .. AND DR WAIN; SERMON MHO. THE OPNOSIONS. 10)010010 COUR coMpAcTIoN, ANAL 31. PMNPECTO AEBUILT AToRre. APPROVEr .7 FENCE .-- 0--- BRsuu
PIKT• ..,-," EA. 00 IDE ROAM AU_ SADISM ACMEATKEILE. FLOOR CONCRETE I0200000 REMSM ALL .. Tr SHAMED INSPEORIR FOR ROVIRINc APPIJOANT. .oRTERED UIVIL A. SLoPE RETAINED 521' NOPTIEGGAL VOR11.1 Es.N5 LINK
cOUNIY IFOCe PER COUNT, AND 111. AN SE __. FINISHED SUMS. 01111MELL MTH RESULTS, AND EINAT SEN. RE ODOLIMENYATION. 11191F00015 PRIMP 137 PanoREss, 10011110. TEITILISGEEED5L1EGGEELSIGEE-Gran1AIDN ANCHORING. COWIE F. CLEWSLIGE. SECTIONA-A 271' ...." -RENR`FroN No.4.0
MEAPTIRoe 1E20901 Err ARE Of OE SHALL PARTY COUNT, 01•010. APPROVED ODURUNLICE SCHEDULED MD SS NA.RIMs onopLETE, rOUP.¢1 j '-' „ HI-10' SA.' \
DAHOOPA a,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,, 1..1 RE MACON. LOGS. 3E1LE0 SHALL _.. PHASE ISOZE.......EGIALIGGETZT2711 A ALL ACCORDANCE 1001 PLAN PPM INPROVEMENG Err 112 APIEGIA 405a TIARIOOPA W.,SUENTORD MONA. .1 ,., SCALET
...TER BORING DETIoNsouswo _ SCHEDULE PLACEMENT SLACEMENT 005030+ REDISTRATON. DENOHSTRAIINO •.T.NDIHR5. ENCINTER. 0010 MARIO:PA SEEMED BE AN SCOU.NonG PLAN SC MIELE= ANICASSALIAL FRACE51.7, 02o./DAT0. RE 55,911.T .1 212-10-0230 1111-13
MIA.. SHALL FOR ROMS, .0101E. _ AS.tl.L.1 DESIGN =ELLS IN 5011, . DRIRD 10E TO ON TUT UNLESS 145011 rrf D.E. NOT 511.5 1100 PITH FINAL I, V 1 i i 1. Resinous.
, E- 4. 5 5. '1 ---- ASS SONO..
1 _ 94-
O E OF IT 5 BE 7 JD 7 i -
REEEPE ALL LINTTED HMS DE TOP 711E DIGO a
NOT VOIII MSS IN-TDOORESS AND PI SNAIL .01707 THAT IADDOORA LIAO OH RFITNIION sorM1514-93.0 1 1... 0
SNAIL ANCE 211.12 .L.S. WEN Err NAG CURRENT Rir-sco 1..,,Th ,..,.. t,..L..-1 t
IP SONS D SUCH DF.EMED EKOEFO AMINTAINED --.. I ----\
AS 011 IDISEED DE - GER. III ---
MEET OR SHALL S 1 I SO I I .- PIPE 1751332
FILIDIFICADDIT 51901 11E7 TALL ___ 3/4.
STANDARDS. PLANS 3. FENCE
AN SNAIL 01 OF ELETATONI
. 12051015 rsCrM1L 9E0,50, 'clseL,. '. /P-1',,,eDucHusor TOP
96, ss: 02 w ,=. .8 -.E 4 '11`•
A
4Ef.r• 1 4 n'

10/09/2017
NARRATIVE REPORT
AMENDMENT TO SUP Z2015024
Title Page:
Tiensvold family application for Amendment to Special Use Permit
Z2015024. Property located east of Cave Creek Road and south of Dynamite Road
at 27613 N. 44th Street. See attached vicinity map, pg. 4.
Purpose of Request:
Small family business is requesting an Amendment to Cottage Industry
Special Use Permit Z2015024. Family business builds Mare Motels, Corrals, and
Livestock Shade Structures. The Special Use Permit is for the business to store
building materials on family property. The materials consist in lengths of
pipe/tubing and equipment required to offload trucks and stock supplies on site.
Materials will be stored and prepared for delivery to projects in area for
construction. No construction on site is required for the home business. The
property consists of 2.5 acres of land of which 25% would be used for the business.
Description of Proposal:
The ability to purchase building supplies in larger quantities provides the
family business an opportunity to be competitive and give clients a better product at
a better price. The location of supplies is out of sight from the roadway and the
adjacent properties. Temporary storage for resale of construction materials
consisting of steel pipe/tubing (11/4" -4" piping in lengths of 20 1-30') and equipment
for offloading and stockpiling, a forklift and trailer, company truck for jobsite
delivery. Area adjacent to office/shop will be truck and equipment parking. Family
parking of vehicles is in front of home and in attached garage.
• Business operations include storage, off-loading, loading of steel pipe/tubing and
limited display of equine containment facilities. Business operations also include limited
cutting of steel pipe/tubing in the course of material preparation. All cutting of steel
pipe/tubing shall take place in an enclosed sound-proofed structure located next to the
'RECEIVER ECT g 5' 2011

shop building described below. Business will be conducted in a 20' x 40' shop building
located approximately 36' from family dwelling. Business equipment is a desk,
computer/printer and hand tools required for construction use.
• Hours of operation will be from 7 am - 6 pm weekly consisting of minimal amount
of hours on property as all building of corrals and mare motels are on-site for final
installation. 8-12 on Saturday. Public access is by appointment only but very limited.
• Number of employees. Corral Kraft LLC consists of 3 employees. Tyler Tiensvold
and his mother, Cecilia Tiensvold are owners and 1 employee.
• 800 square foot shop/office is located on the southern side and western edge of
Special Use area.
• To contain any sound associated with the cutting activities, Corral Kraft has
renovated a previously open structure with soundproofed walls and a sound-proofed
rolling door. The footprint of the pre-existing structure has not been altered. Separately
from this application for amendment Corral Kraft LLC is in the process of securing a
building permit for the renovation: B201707475.
• No signage will be used.
Relationship to Surrounding Properties:
Surrounding properties consist of horse owners, riding and roping arenas,
livestock pens and families. Having lived in area many years, we have worked
with many of the homeowners in repairs and assistance with equine facilities.
Many of the neighbors are friends and all work together when there is assistance
needed for any reason.
Location and accessibility:
Paved driveway and easy access to 44th Street, Dynamite, Tatum Road
and Cave Creek Road and accessible by all transportation equipment necessary
to deliver and stock materials for the business.
Circulation Systems:
No changes required to existing facilities.
2

Development Schedule:
Shop/office area is existing on the property, location noted on site plan.
Community Facilities and Services:
No changes required.
Public Utilities and Services:
• City of Phoenix Water
• APS Electrical
• On Site Septic System

M anc op a County
Planning & Development Department
Engineering Plan Review
Date: October 31, 2017
Stacey A. Lapp, P.E., CFM
Planning & Development
541 North 44th Street, Suite 200 Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director, Department of Planning &
Phoenix, An2ona 55008 Development
Phone: (602) 506-4717
Email address:
StacevLanDOmail.rnaricopa.qov Attn: Raymond Banker, AICP, Planner, Planning & Development Services
From: Stacey A. Lapp, RE., CFM, Plans Examiner Engineer, Planning &
Development Services
CC: Michael Norris, P.E., Drainage Engineering Manager, Planning &
Development
Subject: Z2017101 — Special Use Permit Amendment for Cottage Industry in
Rural Zoning District — Tiensvold SUP for Corral Kraft LLC
(D1 Memo)
Job Site Address: 27613 N 441h Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
APN(s): 212-18-022A
Engineering Review has reviewed the plans and report submittal date stamped
10/09/2017 for the subject application and has the following objections:
Drainage Plan Review Comments:
1. The engineered grading and drainage plans submitted have expired seal.
Resubmittal of the engineer's plans needs to be with their updated signature, date
signed and registration expiration date.
Flood Control District Advisement:
2. The site is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Zone AO — Shallow
Flooding (1' depth)). A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for any
development on the site, including storage of materials.
Any approval of this case should include the following standard stipulations:
1. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section
1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards;
Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual;
and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.

2. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only
and does not represent final design approval nor shall it entitle applicants to future
designs that are not in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance and Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations
for Maricopa County; and the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual.
3. Detailed Grading and Drainage Plans showing the new site improvements must be
submitted for the acquisition of building permits.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification of these comments.

Maticopa County
Environmental Services Department
Water and Waste Management Division
Water and Waste Management DATE: October 17, 2017
Division
Subdivision Infrastructure &
Planning Program TO: Raymond Banker, Planning & Development Dept.
1001 N. Central Avenue #150 Planner
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Phone: (602) 506-0376
TDD Fax: (602) 602 506 506-5813 6701 FROM: Souren Naradikian, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineering
SUBJECT: Tiensvold Cottage Industry SUP; Z2017101
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed
documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development
Department for the above referenced project. This project requests approval of a
cottage industry Special Use Permit to allow for storing building materials at 27613
North 44th Street. Existing septic system will be used to manage sanitary sewage for
the business. The current public water system City of Phoenix will provide potable
water. The parcel is located in the urbanized unincorporated area, but the disturbed
soil is estimated to be much less than one acre, and therefore, the project is not
regulated by the Maricopa County Stormwater Quality Program.
Based on the above, MCESD raised no objections to the Planning & Development
Department on October 17, 2017 and will allow the project to proceed at this time.
Stipulations: None
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will
be made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of
application.

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Case #Z2017101 - Corral Kraft, LLC (SUP Major Amendment)
From: Ian Thompson - SHERIFFX
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:50 AM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX <RaymondBanker@mail.maricopa.gov >
Subject: FW: Case ttZ2017101 - Corral Kraft, LLC (SUP Major Amendment)
Hi Raymond; I have reviewed this application and the Sheriff's Office has no comments regarding the SUP for a Home
Occupation Cottage Industry.
Thanks
Ian J. Thompson
Division Commander
550 W. Jackson Street, Suite 135
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office Number (602) 876-4701
Fax Number (602) 876-0050
I Thompson@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged, and are intended solely for the use of the recipients listed
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the transmitted information is strictly
prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete and destroy all copies and attachments,
1

Raymond Banker - PLAN DEVX
From: ROBYN <rstreet101@msn.com >
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:03 AM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX; Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX; Raymond Banker -
PLANDEVX; Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX; Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX; Raymond
Banker - PLANDEVX; Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Corral Kraft
November 8, 2017
To Mr. Raymond Banker,
My mother and 1, respectively, live directly south of the Tiensvolds. We have been here since 2002.
I have lived in this neighborhood since 1989. It is a wonderful neighborhood full of families and animals and
activities that go with
them. Mainly horses and different types of disciplines. ( ie. roping, jumping, dressage, trails, show). We have
Dynamite Roping Arena,
that is an icon in the roping/cowboy world. We have many talented and skilled people, that are diverse in their
knowledge and abilities
that support and work in the horse communities, and one of them is Tyler Tiensvold with Corral Kraft. He is a
talented and skilled
builder of mare motels, livestock pens, and fencing. Being that we boarder on their south property line , we
are his closet neighbor.
I work with horses that need special care due to injuries, post surgeries, or long term healing. My environment
is very important to me.
I can state that I have never had any incidents to the horses or people due to Corral Kraft. We are able to ride
and work with the horses
in a safe way. I am also thankful to have Tyler next door as he has been there aid me when I needed
help. Tyler is a family man and truly
does care about others and their families. Their work mostly takes place off property, at their building sites.
But they do need to prep
and gather materials, which usually takes place in the morning. Having a sound-proof building is a plus, but it
was never very loud
to start with. Farriers making shoes on their anvils is louder. Having Corral Kraft, Tyler, in the neighborhood is
an asset.
Robyn Overstreet
Helga Konigsdorffer
602-694-4916
1

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: Grigg, Kristi (PHOENIX,ARIZONA) <Kristi.Grigg@veritivcorp.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:01 AM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Cc: Grigg, Kristi (PHOENIX,ARIZONA)
Subject: FW: Special Use Permit# Z2015024
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
To Whom This May Concern,
I am writing on behalf of Tyler Tiensvold, Business Owner of Corral Kraft. I do not support the complaint against Special
Use Permit #Z2015024.
I live nearby in the neighborhood. I have a barn and I raise show horses of considerable value and quality. My horses do
not nor have they ever suffered in any way as a result of the Coral Kraft business. They are healthy, maintain their
weight and shiny coats. Unusual as it may sound, my horses lie down and nap during the day, undisturbed. They sleep
at night undisturbed and wake in the morning at their leisure; I must often wait until the sun rises at 7:00am or shortly
thereafter for a horse to wake and rise before feeding during the winter. I would say it is safe to surmise the 'noise'
Coral Kraft is producing is hardly substantial if it does not wake my horses...
I have never had an instance where my horses have spooked and bolted from noise at Corral Kraft either. The horses
are completely unmoved by Corral Kraft. In my opinion said claims are bogus.
I would also like to suggest that Tyler is incredibly friendly and polite. He has on numerous occasions offered assistance
to me with his forklift, bobcat, and other equipment. He has performed welding services when in need and quite simply
has been more than I could ever hope for in a good neighbor. Tyler is an honest young man, newly married with a new
baby. He is a hard working man, making an honest living. In addition, he is providing an honest living for three-four
other young men who show up to work every day to work at Coral Kraft.
Coral Kraft is located on 44ths St just South of Dynamite. This is a very rural area. The majority of residents in the
neighborhood are 'horse people', own horses, have owned, or plan to own horses. Coral Kraft provides a service which
caters to the equine industry. Corral Kraft in my opinion is an asset to the neighborhood.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance in this matter. I would be happy to provide photos and/or
video of the neighborhood from my property demonstrating the calm and peace, and falsehood of said claim(s).
Thank you kindly.
4 gest,
9//: pyy,
1

11/08/2017 09:12 4304734946 AMPM PAGE 02/03
November 7, 2017
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Attorney at Law
Carpenter, Haziewood Delgado 7 Bolen, LLP
1400 E. Southern, Suite 400
Tempe, AZ 85282
RE: Corral Kraft/Tiensvold family
Ladies & Gentlemen:
My name is Roger Page and I am the Tiensvold family/Corral Krafts business operation
resident neighbor directly to the North. We share a common property line.
I have known the Tiensvold family for approximately 14-years. The late Mark Tiensvold
founded the family business known as COXral Kraft a short time after I purchased this
property in an effort to support and provide a living for himself and his growing family.
Mark is survived by his two sons who now provide support for their wives, families and
Mark's widow from the economic benefit Con-al Kraft generates.
It has come to my attention a resident to the North of my property has complained of
alleged noise and disturbance to either themselves and/or their animals/livestock due to
the Corral Kraft business operation. It appears these complaints are groundless and
without merit and in fact in my opinion have caused hardship to the Tiensvold family
both economically, socially and emotionally. In my tenure at this address, (please note
my residence is within l00 of the Corral Kraft family residence/business operation) I
have never experienced noise levels or any other type of disturbance which exceeds
objectionable or legal noise levels due to their business operations or family matters.
Personal observation in recent months confirms the Tiensvold family is now one of two
(2) families in the area who have been affected by the complainants allegations, causing
both families economic, social and emotional hardship. Both families are longstanding
residents of this neighborhood who now find their futures placed in question.
Its is my strongest recommendation, the Maricopa County Dept. of Planning and
Development take into consideration the additional infonnation/facts presented above in

11/08/2017 09:12 4804734946 AMPM PAGE 03/03
addition to consulting with the IViaricopa County Dept. of Behavioral Health & Welfare
to institute a full and thorough investigation into the source of the complaints before any
type of decision by the board is made. In my opinion, anything less would be tantamount
to a serious neglection of duty and due diligence. I believe the boards investigation will
find the allegations/complaints against the Tiensvold family/Corral Kraft business
operation in error and without merit. Approval of their permit application is not only - the
right thing to do but, a vote in the best interest of the County and surrounding residents
economic and social viability.
BAPPetft
RoggiA. Page
Cc: file

DREAMCATCHER RANCH
Prescott Valley, Arizona
I have known Tyler Tiensvold for over four years, and I have used Corral Kraft
seven times to construct fencing and horse shelters for Dreamcatcher Ranch in
Prescott Valley. At the present time, there are 16 horses and mules on our ten acre
property. I have nothing but positive comments to offer about Con -al Kraft's
contributions to equine safety, security, and the appearance of our ranch.
Safe and reliable containment is an essential part of the equine industry.
Regardless of whether you have a one or two horses on a home site, a larger ranch
with many animals, or a boarding facility, safe containment is essential to protect
horses from the many hazards found in both an urban or rural setting.
We purchased our ranch in 2014. At that time, much of the existing fence was
dilapidated and unsafe for equine containment. I met with Tyler and designed new
fencing to meet our unique needs as a young horse training facility. Tyler's
insights and recommendations were invaluable in this process. Much of the new
fencing was built before we even occupied the property. As our needs grew,
Corral Kraft returned to build additional containment systems. Corral Kraft has
now built over 1/2 mile of quality pipe fencing on Dreamcatcher Ranch. No animal
has ever been injured by this fencing. Although the integrity of the fencing has
been challenged by horses on several occasions, there has never been a breach in
safe containment. Corral Kraft built strong, durable, and trustworthy fencing.
Corral Kraft has also built six enclosed shelters at Dreamcatcher Ranch. These
structures provide shelter for our equine family from the wind, rain, and snow in
Northern Arizona. Tyler designed the shelters to meet our needs. They are strong,
attractive, and safe for up to four horses in a shelter. The shelters incorporate an
inner panel of Delmar material. This is a strong steel mesh that would prevent a
horse from kicking through the metal siding and inflicting severe leg or hoof injury
upon itself. No horse at this ranch has ever been hurt by these shelters.
RECEIVED NOV 0 7 2011.

Please allow me to also describe the customer care that Tyler and his Corral Kraft
team bring to any job. When they arrive, they ask where it would be best to place
vehicles, trailers, and construction materials. If the job will take more than one
day, they store materials where they will not interfere with daily functioning of the
ranch. During construction, there are no loud disturbing noises from cutting or
dropping materials. There is no blaring music or loud interaction between team
members. Tyler and his team are polite and respectful to my family, both human
and equine. They respect my property, and do not leave debris or construction
scrap materials where they could create a hazard to any horse.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to describe Corral Kraft's valuable and
safe contributions to the Arizona equine community. I have nothing but praise for
this business, and I wholeheartedly plan to use their services in the future.
Most sincerely,
Bruce N. Cox
8855 E. Turtle Rock Rd.
Prescott Valley, AZ 86315

Jody Swink's
"No Sweat" P Phone; 0 Box 602-330-4917 1398 Black Canyon City, AZ 85324
Natural Horse and Mulernanship
MEM
November 6, 2017
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner and operator of Jody Swink's "No Sweat" Natural Horse and
Mulemanship and the founder of the AZ Horseman's Challenge. I have worked
directly with Tyler Tiensvold and Corral Kraft since 2013. They have not only
supplied my own horse shades, pens and round pens but have also been our only
supplier of all of the round pens used at the AZ Horseman's Challenge.
It is my opinion that the structures, arenas, fencing, corrals and round pens
that they have built for me personally and supplied for my event have been
instrumental in the safety of my horses, my client's horses and also of the
Mustangs that are used in the AZ Horseman's Challenge. I believe in Corral Kraft
and their products so much so that I also recommend Corral Kraft to all of my
client's that are in need of any livestock structures, fencing, corrals, etc. I can
emphatically state that livestock, including horses, can be safely maintained next
to the Tiensvold residence, that Corral Kraft and its representatives have never
damaged property and that this business is not a hazard. This company is
professional, courteous and goes above and beyond to accommodate in every
aspect.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at
602-330-4917.
Sincerely
d9 Swink
RECEIVED NOV 7 2011

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: npeirce@wildblue,net
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 5:09 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Regarding: Corral Kraft, LLC-Amendment to Special Use Permit Z2015024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Eleanor and Kevin Peirce
5708 E. Morning Vista Lane
Cave Creek, Arizona, 85331
npeirce@wildblue.net
Dear Mr. Banker and Others Who May Be Concerned,
We are writing to you in an effort to show our support for the Tiensvold family and their business, Corral Kraft, which
has an A+, Five Star rating from our Better Business Bureau. The Corral Kraft company has been an integral part of our
local equine community since 2005. As far as our family, which lives in a Cave Creek county island of horse properties, is
concerned, there is absolutely every reason to grant Corral Kraft an Amendment to Special Use Permit 22015024.
The Tiensvold family built a sound-proof structure to control the sound of sawing metal pipes. They have never, to my
knowledge, done anything to harm or cause harm to happen to any near-by livestock or people in the process of
conducting their business. We know this to be true, because we have boarded our horses next door to Corral Kraft on
numerous occasions over the years. We have also visited these same horses at all times of the day and night. We've
never heard any frightening noises from Corral Kraft. Neither our horses nor ourselves have ever been injured or hurt in
any way by Corral Kraft or the Tiensvold family. To suggest any animal or human has been injured or hurt by these
people is not just malicious, it is ridiculous!
One special thing about living in the Cave Creek equine community, is we all know everything going-on that may concern
our horses or our properties. We have never heard of law enforcement being called out to the Tiensvold property.
Please, trust me, we would have heard about it! Corral Kraft is most definitely NOT a hazard to property located in our
county islands. As year by year our once beautiful Sonoran Desert is developed into tract homes on postage stamp-sized
lots, Corral Kraft is providing the local equine community with premium quality and very secure livestock enclosures.
This becomes increasingly important in view of our rapidly growing population surrounding our so-called county islands.
As Maricopa County taxpayers and voters, we are concerned our Planning and Development Department has given so
much time and credence to what appea‘rs to be unsubstantiated complaints. We will certainly try to be present at the
Maricopa County P&Z hearing on this amendment to support the Tiensvold family.
Sincerely,
1

Eleanor and Kevin Peirce
2

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: RE: sup 2
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:42 PM, s anne smith <sannesmithymail.com > wrote:
S. Anne Smith
27635 N 44th Street
Cave Creek, AZ 85338
Raymond Banker
SUP #Z2017101 Corral Kraft, LLC
Dear Mr. Banker,
I am writing in reference to the request by
Corral Kraft LLC, to expand their current SUP to include manufacturing.
1. This is a county island created and designed as a residential area for families with land adequate
to accommodate animals, horses in particular.
2. The type of manufacturing intended in this SUP includes the sawing of steel, arc welding and the
manipulation of pole bundles by being crashed to the ground. The magnitude of their enterprise
belongs in an industrial park, not a residential area.The ancillary noises inherent in such a business is
out of the scope of any residential setting as well.
3. The proposed 'soundproofing' of an existing garage structure will never handle the types of noises
created. They continue to crash poles to the ground in the imagined context of their current SUP
4. The Special Use Permit that they have is very detailed and specific about the creation of disturbing
noises, odors, etc., anything out of the ordinary. The pole crashing being done regularly is dangerous
and startling for the proximal livestock and homes. When they escalated their enterprise to include
the sawing of steel, etc., they claimed they 'misunderstood' their SUP. Their own language in their
SUP is very clear. No 'misunderstanding' here.
5. There have already been injuries to both people and livestock. If they are granted this extreme
SUP it will impact the property values negatively and set a terrible precedent. It would not be
possible to maintain livestock proximal to their residence and that kind of disruptive activity, noise and
energy is dangerous for any horse-related activity..
6. Peace of Mind and Peace and Quiet are precious in the context of this world in current times. Our
homes are our centers. They never should have been granted the SUP they have. The police have
been called repeatedly and each time they managed to dodge the issues.
Please do not award the requested SUP. It does not benefit anyone but Corral Kraft. It is damaging
and hazardous for all properties contained in this county island.
1

Thank you,
S Anne Smith
2

I. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT
A. Title Page:
Corral Kraft, LLC
North of City of Phoenix, in Maricopa County, West of Tatum Road, South of
Dynamite Rd. on 44th Street,
L.00ATIONM P
B. Details and Techniques Used to Involve the Public:
• On October 25, 2017 Corral Kraft mailed the Citizen Review Process Notification
Letter ("Letter") attached hereto as Exhibit A by first class mail to all real
property owners located within the three-hundred foot (300') Amended Special
Use Permit Request, The recipients of the Letter are listed below:
COX LIVING TRUST ROGER PAGE JAY & CHRISTY NANCE
27826 N 44TH STREET 27619 N 44TH STREET 4514 E PINNACLE VISTA DR
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
21248-012B 212-16-0225 212-12-013D
SUSAN WHITMORE RUSSELL KRISTY GRIGG SHIRLEY ANNE SMITH TRUST
KAREN HERBISON-HOYT 27629 N 44th STREET 27635 N 44TH STREET
JAMES E. HOYT CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
27629 N 44TH STREET 212-18-021C 212-18-021D
CAVE CREEK, AZ 65331
212-18-021B
0
RECEIVED NOV 08 2011

ANTHONY TURCHETTA ALLEN AND MONICA KIRK CECILIA TIENSVOLD
P.O. BOX 285 27614 N 44TH STREET 27613 N 44TH STREET
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
21242-013H 212-18-0105 212-18-022A
FRANCOIS ROGALLE CIS TIENSVOLD KELGA KONIGSDORFFER TRUST
27426 N44TH STREET 27429 N 44TH STREET 27429 N 44TH STREET
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
212-18-010D 21218-02313 212-18-023D
DAROLYN SHAW ROBYN OVERSTREET CHRISTOPHER & JANINE YOUNT
27417 N 44TH STREET 27422 N 44TH STREET 27435N 45TH STREET
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ85331 CAVE CREEK, AZ85331
212-18-023C 21248-023E 212-12-012C
• On November 1, 2017 a copy of the Letter was faxed to Mr. Roger Page on
his request.
• On November 2, 2017 Corral Kraft mailed a Citizen Review Process
Notification Letter to Beethe Arabians, LLC:
BEETHE ARABIANS, LLC
27814 N 44TH STREET
CAVE CREEK, AZ 85331
• On November 7 and 8, 2017, Attorney Linsmeier attempted to contact Ms. Sue
Russell, 27629 N 44th Street, by telephone for the purpose of discussing the
proposed amendment and any further concerns Ms. Russell may have regarding
Corral Kraft. Attorney Linsmeier left voicemail, but was unable to speak with Ms.
Russell in person as of the date of the Citizen Participation Report.
Seven (7) people participated in the Citizen Review Process as of November 8, 2017.

C. Summary of Concerns, Issues and Problems:
PERSON ONE:
S. Anne Smith e-mailed her Opposition on October 18, 2017 with assistance from
Jennifer Pokorski, Maricopa County. Corral Kraft's response to S. Anne Smith's
concerns are below:
1. The zoning district for the neighborhood is Rural-43. Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance, Section 503 defines the purpose of Rural-43 zoning:
PURPOSE: The principal purpose of this zoning district is to
conserve and protect farms and other open land uses, foster orderly
growth in rural and agricultural areas, prevent urban and
agricultural land use conflicts, and encourage sustainable
development, but when governmental facilities and services, public
utilities and street access are available, or can reasonably be made
available, applications for change of this zoning district to any
single-family residential zoning district will be given
favorable consideration. Principal uses permitted in this zoning
district include both farm and non-farm residential uses, farms
and recreational and institutional uses.
The principal R-43 uses include farms, recreational, and institutional uses, which
accurately reflects the character of the neighborhood. Corral Kraft provides an
essential service to both the farms and the equine operations in the area.
2. Corral Kraft stores lengths of steel pipe on the property located at 27613 N.
44th Street, Cave Creek (the "Property"). Corral Kraft must engage in
limited cutting of pipe lengths for transport to client construction sites.
Corral Kraft does not engage in manufacturing on the Property, has never
engaged in manufacturing on the Property during the time of the Special
Use Permit, and the Amendment has no reference to manufacturing.
3. The enclosed outbuilding is in the process of being permitted by Maricopa
County (B201707475) and will comply with Maticopa County Code.
4. S. Anne Smith is the only neighbor who has contacted law enforcement
regarding the alleged noise, S. Anne Smith did not complain to MCSO
about noise from crashing pipe bundles, only cutting pipe. The Corral
Kraft proposed amendment will address the noise concerns associated with
cutting pipe. See MCSO public records request and response received
attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. Corral Kraft contends there was a drafting error in the original SUP, as the
ability to cut length of pipe for transport is essential for Corral Kraft's
business model. Corral Kraft has requested an amendment to its original
SUP to correct that drafting error. Corral Kraft has never engaged in
manufacturing on the Property,
5. In response to S Anne Smith's statement there have been injuries to people
and livestock, Corral Kraft filed a public records request with the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office on October 26, 2017. See Exhibit B. MCSO has
no record of any injuries to people or to livestock during the time of Corral
Kraft's SUP.
Counsel for Corral Kraft also contacted the Arizona Department of
Agriculture on October 31, 2017 by telephone, and was unable to confirm
any record of injuries to livestock at either the Property or the 27635 N. 44th
Street, Cave Creek, Arizona during the time of Corral Kraft's SUP.
6. S. Anne Smith also stated, "[Ole police have been called repeatedly and
each time they managed to dodge the issues." S. Anne Smith is the only
person who has called law enforcement, and she was advised her repeated
calls to MCSO were inappropriate. See Exhibit B report dated March 23,
2017 at page 8.
MCSO records indicate S. Arnie Smith complained Corral Kraft was
sawing and chopping metal poles, which is the activity being directly
addressed by the proposed Amendment. Corral Kraft has never
manufactured steel, and does not have the equipment necessary for that
process.
In an abundance of caution, counsel spoke with Marshall Adam Stein,
Town of Cave Creek on October 31, 2017, Marshall Stein confirmed he
would only respond to an emergency incident on the County island if
MCSO was not available, Marshall Stein has no record of responding to
the Property or to 27635 N. 44th Street, Cave Creek, AZ.
Counsel is an equine law attorney who practices in Cave Creek, and is
unaware of any other law enforcement agency that would respond to a
complaint regarding noise in the County island.
Corral Kraft is located near two major roads with heavy traffic: I) Tatum Blvd.
and 2) Cave Creek Road. Phoenix Fire Department Firehouse 49 is located two miles
away at 3750 E. Dynamite Blvd. The neighborhood includes both private and

commercial equestrian/livestock facilities, which generate traffic, heavy trucks, waste
hauling, farriers, livestock, and all of the other typical activities expected in a
neighborhood zoned R-43. Respectfully, the noise generated by Corral Kraft is minimal,
and in keeping with the current neighborhood noise levels. The noise from cutting pipe
will be directly addressed by the proposed amendment.
PERSON TWO:
On November 1, 2017 Bruce Cox, Dreamcatcher Ranch (623.451.4498) called
Attorney Linsnaeier to express support for Corral Kraft. Mr. Cox later provided a letter in
support of Corral Kraft on November 7, 2017 which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
PERSON THREE:
On November 1, 2017 Roger Page, 27626 N 44th Street, called Attorney
Linsmeier to express support for the Corral Kraft Amended SUP. Mr. Page later
provided a letter in support of Corral Kraft and the requested amendment on November 8,
2017 which is attached as Exhibit D.
PERSON FOUR:
On November 6, 2017, Jody Swink, founder of the AZ Horseman's Challenge,
provided a letter in support of Corral Kraft, The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
PERSON FIVE:
On November 6, 2017, Kevin and Eleanor Peirce, residents of the County island,
provided a letter in support of the Corral Kraft and the requested amendment. The letter
is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
PERSON SIX:
On November 7, 2017 Raymond Banker, Maricopa County, spoke with neighbor
Robyn Overstreet, 27423 N 44th Street, who stated she would send an e-mail in support
of Corral Kraft and the requested amendment.
PERSON SEVEN:
On November 8, 2017 Kristy Grigg, 27629 N 44th Street, e-mailed Raymond
Banker, Maricopa County in support of Corral Kraft and the requested amendment. A
forwarded copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

Exhibit A

CARPENTER HALLEWOOD
Carpenter, HazIewood, Delgado & Bolan,1.1,P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHOENIX 1400 East Southern Avenue, Suite 400 Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Licensed in Arizona Esq.
Tempe, T 480-427-2800 Arizona 85282-5891 e-mail: lydia@carpenterhazIewood.GM
F 480-427-2801 direct: 480-427-2866
October 24, 2017
RECORD OWNER NAME
RECORD OWNER ADDRESS
Re: Corral Kraft, LLC
Amendment to Special Use Permit Z2015024
Citizen Review Process Notification Letter
Dear RECORD OWNERNAME,
We represent the Tyler and Cecilia Tiensvold, and their business Corral Kraft
("Corral Kraft"), LLC. As you know, Corral Kraft and the Tiensvold family have been
part of your neighborhood since 2005, when Mark TiensvoId first founded the business.
Corral Kraft builds mare motels, livestock shade structures, riding arenas, pole barns, and
some fencing/corrals.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved Special Use Permit
Z2015024 ("SUP") on October 21, 2015. The SUP permits the Tiensvold to store steel
pipe/tubing in quantity on site to allow Corral Kraft to offer its customers better pricing
and become more competitive in the industry. Over ninety-five percent (95%) of Corral
Kraft's work is done on the purchaser's construction site. However, the lengths of steel
pipe/tubing must be cut for transport before leaving the Tiensvold property. Maricopa
County has taken the position that the SUP as approved does not include cutting the
lengths of steel pipe/tubing for the purpose of trarisport, only storage of the lengths of
steel pipe/tubing. Therefore, Corral Kraft is requesting an amendment to the original
SUP to permit its stored steel pipe/tubing to be cut for the purpose of transport to
customer construction sites.
Corral Kraft understands there have been neighbor noise complaints regarding
cutting that has previously taken place. if the amendment to the SUP is approved, all
future cutting of steel pipe/tubing will take _place in an enclosed, sound-proofed
ALBUQUERQUE • AUSTIN • DALLAS • DURANGO • PHOENIX • PRESCOTT
SALT LAKE CITY • SAN ANTONIO • SAN DIEGO • SANTA FE • TUCSON
CARPENTERHAZLEWOOD.COM
NATIONWIDE T 800-743-9324 • F 800-743-0494

CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
CORRALKRFT.0001
October 24, 2017
Page 2
building that has been inspected and permitted by Maricopa County. None of the
other SUP conditions will change.
REQUEST: Amendment to Narrative Report for Approved SUP Z2015024
PROPOSAL: Please see above intim
LOCNIION: 27613 N. 44th Street Cave Creek, Arizona 85331
SIZE: 2.44 acres
AUTHORIZED AGENT: Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
1400 E. Southern, Suite 400
Tempe, AZ 85282
CONTACT PERSON: Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
1400 E. Southern, Suite 400
Tempe, AZ 85282
480427-2866
An application has been filed with the Marieopa County Department of Planning
and Development regarding the request above. As required by the Marieopa County
Zoning Ordinance, this notice is being sent to you because property listed in your name is

CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
CORRALKRET.0001
October 24, 2017
Page 3
located within 300 feet of the site noted above. This notice is being sent to you to inform
you of this application and to provide you with an opportunity to relay any questions,
issues or concerns regarding this application to Lydia Peirce Linsmeier at 4X0427-
2566 within twenty (20) days of the date of this notice.
THIS IS NOT A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
HOWEVER, YOU MAY RECEIVE SUCH A NOTICE AT A FUTURE
DATE IF THE APPLICATION IS SCHEDITLED FOR BEARING.
Sincerely,
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
for
CARPENTER, HAZLE WOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP

Exhibit B

MCSO Location of event by Address
From: 10/21/2015 Thru: 10/1/2017
10131M17 10:2945 AM CAD016-LocationOrEvent 1 of .1
•• •
..•Diat. Unit • - Serie) RC kneel:4'2 '.• Eveni. Adflies or.CinfrATOW
- DJspo' Over MOO
27635 N 44TH ST CVC - NO EVENTS

MCSO Location of Event by Address
From: 10121/2015 Thru: 1 Oil (2(117
10r31/2017 10131:112 AM CAD016-Location01EveRE I of I
)3161.. unit Serial RC RCDfiser Ev.Re Mor,:;!
Primary RrEmarg • Over Olson
MD16225414 0B/55/2016 0E6812 .134 A433 51179 415 NEIGHBOR TROIA:3LE 27613 N 44TH ST
MD16262167.. " 1012512016 16:5814 64 ' A434 .S1256 ,415E. Lath) NEIGHBoR3 , 2751 N44ThST
• toiD-17648663 02122/2017 .1125942 D4 A433 51179 .415E LOUD NEIGHBORS DISTURBING -27613 N 44TH ST
i4017073553 03/23/2017 12:46:40 -D4 . 0432 51647 •41E LOUD NEIGHBORS DISTURBING 27613 N 44TH ST

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 10/31/2017 10:30:55 AM 1 of 2
Event #: MCI 6225414 Case Number:
Caller Name: ANN SMITH Caller Phone It: ME=
Event Type Desch:. 415 NEIGHBOR TROUBLE
Event Sub-Type:
Location of Event: 27613 N 44TH ST
Dispatch Group: 04 Beat: 433 Reporting Area: 46190
Date/Time Call Received: 08/3112016 09:08:32
Crass Reference(s)
Date/Time Dispatch: 08/3112016 09:08:48
Date/Time Unit Enraute: 08/31/2016 09:10;14
Date/Time Unit on Scene: 0813112016 09:31:06
Date/Time Cleared: 08131/2016 10:10:14
Unit Serial DispositionfDescription
A433 S1179 1 INFORMATION RECEIVED
A434 S1256 4 DETAIL COMPLETED AS ASSISTING UNIT
Date Open Time Open Serial prilt Comments
08/31/2016 09:08:32 B2014 CC IN PERSON.. COMP SAYS THAT THERE IS A "CORRAL KRAFT" THERE THAT IS
VIOLATING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEY ARE BUILDING CORRALS ON THE
PROPERTY WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS AND MAKING LOTS OF NOISE.. COMP
WOULD LIKE A DEPUTY TO COME OUT SO SHE CAN SPEAK WITH THEM
01313112016 09:08:32 82014 LOP search completed at 08/31/16 09:08:32
06/31/2016 09:08:48 A7502 A433
06/3112016 09:10:14 61179 Unit A433 Enroute
06131/2016 09:17:19 A7502 A434 D
08/31/2016 09:31:05 S1179 A433 OS
08/31/2016 09:31:06 S1179 Unit A433 On Scene
08/31/2016 09:34:28 81256 Unit A434 On Scene
08/31/2016 09:34:29 S1256 A434 OS
08/31/2016 09:41:38 A7502 A433 OS
08/31/2016 09:41:38 A7502 A433 CL
08/31/2016 09:41:38 A7502 Unit A433 Location changed to 27813 N 44TH ST IVICPRX
08/31/2016 09:41:39 A7502 ** LOI search completed at 08/31116 09:41:39
08/31/2016 09:41:45 A7502 Unit A434 Location changed 10 27813 N 44TH ST MCPHX
08/31/2016 09:41:46 A7502 A434 OS
08/31/2016 09:41:46 A7502 A434 CL
08131/2016 09:41:47 A7502 LOP search completed at 08/31/16 09:41:47

IVICSO CAD Event History
Printed 10/31/2017 103066 AM 2 of 2
08/31/2016 10:09.56 S1179 EVENT TYPE CHANGED AT 8/31/2016 10:09:55 AM BY MOT UNIT A433
0813112016 10:09:56 S1179 Unit A433 Clear/1
08/3112016 10:09:56 S1170 A433 AM
08/31/2016 10:10:13 S1256 Unit A434 Clear/4
08/31/2016 10:10:14 S1256 A434 AM

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 10/31/2017 10:31:13 AM 1 of 2
Event 4: MCI 6282157 Case Number:
Caller Name: ANN SMITH Caller Phone 4:
Event Type Descr; 415E LOUD NEIGHBORS DISTURBING
Event Sub-Type;
Location of Event: 27613 N 44TH ST
Dispatch Group: 04 Beat: 433 Reporting Area: 46190
Date/Time Call Received: 10/25/2016 10:58:14
Cross Reference(s)
Date/Time Dispatch: 10/25/2016 11:17:17
Date/Time Unit Enroute: 10/25/2016 11:31:21
DatelTime Unit on Scene: 10/25/2016 11:42:05
Date/rime Cleared: 10/25/2016 12:07:48
Unit Serial DisposItion/DescriptIon
A432 S1270
A434 61256 3 UNABLE TO LOCATE / UNABLE TO CONTACT FOR SERVICE
Date Open Time CIPOO SeriOL! • Unit Comments
10125/2016 10:58:14 81011 cc by 21.,advsng that her neighs at thls reed are manufacturing steel and she said this is in
violation of their special use permit that she has. compls advsng that that the noise is too
distracting and disturbs her peace, shes also advsng that she has horses and no one wants
to ride horses with the noise either. she did call the county and found out that they are in
violation of their permit because their permit is for storage only of the steel, not the
manufacturing of the steel. nfi
10/25/2016 10:58:15 B1011 ** LOI search completed at 10/25/16 10:58:15
10125/2016 10:58:59 81613 Leal Information for Event /I MC16282167 was viewed at: 10/25/16 10:58:59
1012512016 11:00:56 81613 G430 ADV
10/26/2016 11:14:59 81613 A432
10/25/2016 11:16:35 B1613 A432 AM Preempt:CAD AUTOMATIC PREEMPT Unit A432
10/25/2016 11:16:35 131613 Preempt:CAD AUTOMATIC PREEMPT Unit A432
10/2512016 11:16:36 B1613 'Event held for 60 minutes and unit A432
10/25/2016 11:16:50 B1613 Preempt Event
10125/2016 11:17:17 B1613 A434
10/25/2016 11:31:21 61256 Unit A434 En route
10125)2016 11:42:04 80349 LOI search completed at 10/25116 11:42:04
10125/2016 11:42:04 130349 Unit A434 Location changed to BY 21
10/2512016 11:42:04 80349 A434 CL
10/25/2016 11:42:05 80349 A434 OS
10/25/2016 11:42:11 60349 A434 OS

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 10/3112017 10:31:13 AM
10/25/2016 11:42:11 B0349 A434 CL
10/25/2016 11:42:11 B0349 Unit A434 Location changed to ST400 BY 21
10/25/2016 11:42:11 B0349 "' LO 1 search completed at 10/25116 11:4211
10/25/2016 12:07:47 61256 Unit A434 Clear/3
10/25/2016 12:07:48 81256 A434 AM

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 1013112017 10:31:28 AM 1 of 1
Event #: MCI 7040083 Case Number:
Caller Name: SMITH, ANN Caller Phone 111111111111M
Event Type Descr: 415E LOUD NEIGHBORS DISTURBING
Event Sub-Type:
Location of Event: 27613 N 44TH ST
Dispatch Group: D4 Beat: 403 Reporting Area: 46190
Date/Time Call Received: 0212212017 12:59:42
Cross Reference(s)
Date/Time Dispatch: 0212212017 13:31:21
Date/lime Unit Enroute: 02/2212017 13:52:29
Date/Time Unit on Scene:
Date/Time Cleared: 02/22/2017 14:03;41
Unit . Serial Disposition/Description
A433 S1179 5 DETAIL COMPLETED AS PRIMARY UNIT
Date Openk T(i.(i.ie Open Serial . Unit Comments
02/22/2017 12:59:42 B$823 CC CALLER SHE HAS PAPERWORK STATING WHAT TYPES OF NOISE CAN COME
FROM CORAL KRAFT
0212212017 12:59:42 B3823 BUSINESS AND CURRENTLY THEY ARE SAWING AND CHOPPING METAL POLES
MAKING TOO MUCH NOISE
02/2212017 12:59:43 93823 ** LOI search completed at 02/22/17 12:59:43
02/22/2017 13:07:05 B2963 ** LOI Information for Event # MC17048083 was viewed at: 02/22/17 13:07:06
02/22/2017 13:31:21 92963 A433 13
02122/2017 13:52:29 81179 Unit A433 Enroute
0212212017 14:03:40 Si 179 EVENT TYPE CHANGED AT 2/2212017 2:03:40 PM BY MDT UNIT A433
02/2212017 14:03:40 $1179 Unit A433 Clear/5
02/22/2017 14:03:40 S1179 A433 AM advised ann smith to obtain an injuotion based on the county's noise ordinance and the
use permit they granted to the subjects.
02/22/2017 14:03:41 91179 advised ann smith to obtain an injuction based on the county's noise ordinance and the use
permit they granted to the subjects.

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 1013112017 10:36:19 AM 1 of 2
Event* MC17073553 Case Number:
Caller Name: SMITH, ANN Caller Phone
Event Type Reser: 415E LOUD NEIGHBORS DISTURBING
Event Sub-Type:
Location of Event: 27613 N 44TH ST
Dispatch Group: D4 Seat: 433 Reporting Area: 46190
DafelTime Call Received: 03/23/2017 12:49:40
Cross Reference(s)
Date/Time Dispatch: 03/23/2017 12:52:41
Date/Time Unit Enroute: 03/23/2017 12:53:05
Date/Time Unit on Scene: 03/2312017 13:17:21
Date/Time Cleared: 03/23/2017 13:35:09
Unit .Serial Disposition/Description
A433 S1179 5 DETAIL COMPLETED AS PRIMARY UNIT
G432 S1647 4 DETAIL COMPLETED AS ASSISTING UNIT
Date Open Time Open Serial Unit Comments
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 CC IF NEEDED
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 CORRECTION ,CC W/ RESULTS
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 COMPL SYS NEIGH'S AT LOC ARE VIOLATING THE NOISE ORDINANCE
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 SYS THEY'RE MANUFACTURING HORSE CORRALS
03/23/2017 12:49:40 91102 AND THAT IS NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIST
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 *PERMIT
03123/2017 12:49:40 B1102 COMPL SYS SHE HAS A COPY OF THE PERMIT AND THEY ARE CLEARLY IN
VIOLATION
03/23/2017 12:49:40 B1102 CC W/ RESULTS AND IF NEEDED
03/23/2017 12:49:41 B1102 ** LOI search completed at 03/23/17 12:49:41
03/23/2017 12:52:41 A7502 A433 0
03123/2017 12:53:04 A7502 0432
03/23/2017 12:55:21 51179 Unit A433 Enroute
03/23/2017 12:57:36 A7502 A433 -- THIS IS AN ON GOING EVENT..MOSTLY A 410 W/ THE
03/2312017 12:57:36 A7502 COUNTY..CHK WI A430 WE'VE AD VS 101 NUMEROUS
03/23/2017 12:57:36 A7502 TIMES-COUNTY PLANNING.ZONING NEEDS TO COME OUT HERE
03/23/2017 12:57:37 A7502 Unit A433 - TIMES..COUNTY PLANNINGZONING NEEDS TO COME OUT HERE
03/23/2017 12:57:55 A7502 g430 - have him give compl a 21 and reiterate that to her
03/23/2017 12:57:59 A7602 A433 — 10-4

MCSO CAD Event History
Printed 10131/2017 10:36:19 AM 2 or 2
03/23/2017 13:16:28 81011 Preempt:CAD AUTOMATIC PREEMPT Unit 0432
03/2312017 13:18:28 81011 0432 AM Preempt:CAD AUTOMATIC PREEMPT Unit G432
03/23/2017 13:16:31 B1011 G432
03/2312017 13:17:21 B1011 A433 OS
03/23/2017 13;17:21 81011 A433 CL
03/23/2017 13:17:21 81011 " LOI search completed at 03123/17 13:17:21
03/23/2017 13:17:21 81011 Unit A433 Location changed to 27613 N 44TH ST MCPHX
D3/23/2017 13:17:31 81011 A433 — THIS ADDR SEEMS TO BE THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE
03123/2017 13:33:19 51647 Unit 0432 Clear/4
03/23/2017 13:33:19 S1647 0432 AM
03/23/2017 13:35:09 S1179 A433 AM
03/23/2017 13:35:09 S1179 EVENT TYPE CHANGED AT 3/23/2017 1:35:09 PM BY MDT UNIT A433
03/23/2017 13:35:09 S1179 Unit A433 Clear/5

CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD
Carpenter, Hezieweed. Delgada & Bolen, LLP
ATTonNEys AT RAW
PHOENIX 1400 East Southern Avenue, Suite goo Lydia A. Paine Linsmeler, Licensed In Arizona Esq.
Tempe, T 480-427-2800 Arizona 85282.5691 e-mail: lydiaticarpenterhatlewood.com
F 480,427-2801 direct: 480-427-2888
October 26, 2017
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
ATTN: Custodian of Records
111 S. 3rd Ave., 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re: Records Request
Custodian of Records;
We represent the interests of Corral Kraft, LLC ("Corral Kraft"). The purpose of
this request is to obtain Event Reports for the following two addresses:
27635 N 44th Street
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
27613 N. 44th Street
Cave Creek, Arizona 85331
We are requesting all Reports (including Event Reports) from October 2L 2015
until October 1, 2017. Enclosed please find payment in the amount of five dollars
($5,00) and a Records Release Request. Please advise if additional funds will be
necessary.
Sincerely,
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
for
CARPENTER, HAZLE WOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
05- 69-73(i
ALBUQUERQUE • AUSTIN • DALLAS • DURANGO • PHOENIX • PRESCOTT meso -DR
SALT LAKE CITY • SAN ANTONIO • SAN DIEGO • SANTA FE • TUCSON
CARPENTERHAZLEWOOD.COM OCT 3 1 2017
NATIONWIDE T800-743-6324 • F 800.743-0494
B3492

•
103815 103815 5.00
5.00 5.00 5.00
1701 1701
CORRALKRFT.0001 CORRALKRFT.0001
& BOLEN Release BOLEN & Release
DELGADO ACCOUNT Office Search DELGADO ACCOUNT Office_ Search
Sheriffs Sheriffs Records
NAzLEWOOD OPERATING County Records HAZLEWOOD OPERATING County
CARPENTER Maricopa 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017 CARPENTER Iviarico_pa 10/26/2017 10/26/2017

iVIMUCOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
111 S. 3rd Ave., 3rd Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Records and AFIS Division, Departmental Reports Section
RECEIPT
Fee Schedule:
Reports (per report): $5.00 first 10 pages, $.50 per additional page
Victims of CRIMINAL reports receive one free ropy (Referto MS 39-127)
Event/Location History (combined): $5.00 first 10 pages, $.50 per additional page
Crash Photo CD (per CD): $15.00
I invoice #: 03- 6739
Requestor: Lydia Pierce Linsmeier Reference If: Date of Request: 10/26/2017
Agency/Firm; Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP Date Received: 10/31/2017
Date Invoiced: 10/51/2017
Address: 1400 E Southern Ave Ste.: 400 Date Closing: 12150/2027
Tempe AZ 85282-5691
Date Releosed: 10/31/2017
Phone: (480) 427-2800 Ext.:
Event 4t Report # Item Description Pages Sub Total Qty. Code TOTAL
Event/Location I listory 9 55.00 1 Report $5.00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0.00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0.00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0.00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0.00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0,00
0 $0.00 0 Report $0.00
Total $5.00
Note:
Payment Received: $0.00
This serves as your receipt for the above requested records. Thank you
for your payment. Balance: $5.00
PLEASE PAY BALANCE IN FULL BEFORE RECORDS ARE RELEASED
if paying IN PERSON: Take this form to the Maritopa County Sheriff's Office Judicial Enforcement Division (Civil)
cashier's counter located on the second floor of the West Court Building (one floor down from your current
decation). Upon receipt of your total due, the cashier will provide you with a printed receipt. Bring this invoice
- back, along with the receipt, to the 3rd floor to obtain your requested records. ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF
PAYMENT: Cash, Money Order, Cashier's Check, Business Check. NO PERSONAL CHECKS ARE ACCEPTED.
If paying by MAIL: Please remit your payment to: 111 S. 3rd Ave., 3rd Floor, Phoenl
Acceptable means of payment are Cash, Money Order, Cashier's Check or Business (
CHECKS ARE ACCEPTED.
***PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PAYMENT*** MARICOPA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Is ,are to be corriProted by NICSO PerSOnel ONC -CIVIL DIVISION
111 S 3RD AVENUE 2ND FLOOR
ReceiPt Here CEI PHOENIX, ARIZONA
DATE 10/31/2017 TUE TIME 15:09
NON ADD II 38739
MI REPORT $5.00
- Money Order. SUBTOTAL $5.00
TOTAL $5,00
5 Q/34.1:ac CHECK $5.00
1/52260 No.089025 00001

0
'u
f-.1rAi
04 :...
oSTikci 3e 7:N
1P11111/P/Iiiviildi
41,3
-=s,
e. ----Z-7.-..'
& .„
EF •.
,
jr:' ""
A- fov
-'------i- ,
.. -- 1'11111111111
• • • j/e1<:- DE-L:4D0
• • L 400
' '---Y
, . tvj- I
, i
• •
STE
. •
• • •
.
•
AVE
1thiriiihI1JIii4iiiiM)1
..• LINSMEIER
HAZLEWOOD
•
• 85282-5691
•
•
•
• • SOUTHERN
, • .•
.. PIERCE
"
• AZ •
LLP
,
• -
" CARPENTER E
"
- . CCIF.r9
• • TEMPE
. . LYDIA BOLEN
' ' • 1400
..• • •
. . .
-Srai
.
,
EfiS282.ffSa
Office
Floor
3'd
Sheriff's
Division
-CENTER
for
Avenue,
85003 Pets
ID
County
3 Up
and AZ
kEPORT
South
Senior
Mancopa Records Phoenix,
Stand
111
_
.
bEPAWTMENITAL

Exhibit C

DREA1VICATCHER RANCH
Prescott Valley, Arizona
I have known Tyler Tiensvold for over four years, and I have used Corral Kraft
seven times to construct fencing and horse shelters for Dreamcatcher Ranch in
Prescott Valley. At the present time, there are 16 horses and mules on our ten acre
property. I have nothing but positive comments to offer about Corral Kraft's
contributions to equine safety, security, and the appearance of our ranch.
Safe and reliable containment is an essential part of the equine industry.
Regardless of whether you have a one or two horses on a home site, a larger ranch
with many animals, or a boarding facility, safe containment is essential to protect
horses from the many hazards found in both an urban or rural setting.
We purchased our ranch in 2014. At that time, much of the existing fence was
dilapidated and unsafe for equine containment. I met with Tyler and designed new
fencing to meet our unique needs as a young horse training facility. Tyler's
insights and recommendations were invaluable in this process. Much of the new
fencing was built before we even occupied the property. As our needs grew,
Corral Kraft returned to build additional containment systems. Corral Kraft has
now built over 'A mile of quality pipe fencing on Dreamcatcher Ranch. No animal
has ever been injured by this fencing. Although the integrity of the fencing has
been challenged by horses on several occasions, there has never been a breach in
safe containment. Corral Kraft built strong, durable, and trustworthy fencing.
Corral Kraft has also built six enclosed shelters at Dreameatcher Ranch, These
structures provide shelter for our equine family from the wind, rain, and snow in
Northern Arizona. Tyler designed the shelters to meet our needs. They are strong,
attractive, and safe for up to four horses in a shelter. The shelters incorporate an
inner panel of Delmar material. This is a strong steel mesh that would prevent a
horse from kicking through the metal siding and inflicting severe leg or hoof injury
upon itself. No horse at this ranch has ever been hurt by these shelters.

Please allow me to also describe the customer care that Tyler and his Corral Kraft
team bring to any job. When they arrive, they ask where it would be best to place
vehicles, trailers, and construction materials. If the job will take more than one
day, they store materials where they will not interfere with daily functioning of the
ranch. During construction, there are no loud disturbing noises from cutting or
dropping materials. There is no blaring music or loud interaction between team
members. Tyler and his team are polite and respectful to nay family, both human
and equine. They respect my property, and do not leave debris or construction
scrap materials where they could create a hazard to any horse.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to describe Corral Kraft's valuable and
safe contributions to the Arizona equine community. I have nothing but praise for
this business, and I wholeheartedly plan to use their services in the future.
Most sincerely,
Bruce N. Cox
8855 E. Turtle Rock Rd.
Prescott Valley, AZ 86315

Exhibit D

11/08/2017 09:12 4904734946 AMPM PAGE 02/03
November 7,2017
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Attorney at Law
Caipenter, Haziewood. Delgado 7 Bolen, LLP
1400 E, Southern, Suit 400
Tempe, AZ 852S2
RE: Corral Kraft/Tiensvold family
Lathes & Gentlemen:
My name is Roger Page and I am the Tiensvold family/Corral Krafts business operation
resident neighbor directly to the North. We share a common property line.
I have known the Tiersveld family for approximately I4-years. The late Mark Tiensrvold
founded the family busine,ss known as Corral Kraft a shod time after I purchased this
property In an Wort to support and provide a living for himself and his growing family.
Mark is survived by his two sons who now provide support for their wives, families and
Mark's widow finm the economic benefit Conal Kraft generates_
It has come to my attention a. resident to the North of my property has complahied of
alleged noise and disttitha,-ace to either themselves andJor their animalsilivestock duo to
the Corral Kraft business operation, It appears these complaints are groundless and
without merit and in fact in my opinion have caused hardship to the Tiensvold family
both economically, socially and emotionally. In my tenure at this address, (please note
my residence is within 100' of the Corral Kraft family residence/business operation) I
have never experienced noise levels or any other type of disturbance which exceeds
objectionable or legal noise levels due to their business operations or family matters.
Personal observation in recent months confirms the Tieinvold family is now one of two
(2) families in the area who have been, affected by the complainants allegations, easing
both brow economic, social and emotional hardship. Both families ate longstanding
residents of this neighborhood who now find their futures placed In question.
Its is my strongest recommendation, the Maricopa County Dept. of Planning and
Development take into consideration the additional informationiracts presented above in

11/08/2017 09:12 4804734946 ANIPM PAGE 03/03 .
addition to consulting with the Iviaricopa County Dept. of Behavioral Health 84 Welfare
to institute a. full and thorough investigation into the source of the complaints before any
type of decision by tho board is made. %my opinion, anything less would be tantamount
to a serious neglection of duty and due diligence. I believe the boards investigation will
find the allegations/complaints against the Tiensvold family/Corral Kluft business
operation in error and without merit. Approval of their parnit application is not only the
right thing to do but a. vote in the best interest of the County and surrounding residents
economic and social
Co: fite

Exhibit E

Jody Swink's
"No Sweat" P Phone: 0 Box 1398 602-330-4917 Black Canyon City, AZ 85324
Natural Horse and Mulemanship
November 6, 2017
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner and operator of Jody Swink's "No Sweat" Natural Horse and
Mulemanship and the founder of the AZ Horseman's Challenge. I have worked
directly with Tyler Tiensvold and Corral Kraft since 2011 They have not only
supplied my own horse shades, pens and round pens but have also been our only
supplier of all of the round pens used at the AZ Horseman's Challenge.
It is my opinion that the structures, arenas, fencing, corrals and round pens
that they have built for me personally and supplied for my event have been
instrumental in the safety of my horses, my client's horses and also of the
Mustangs that are used in the AZ Horseman's Challenge. I believe in Corral Kraft
and their products so much so that I also recommend Corral Kraft to all of my
client's that are in need of any livestock structures, fencing, corrals, etc. I can
emphatically state that livestock, including horses, can be safely maintained next
to the Tiensvold residence, that Corral Kraft and its representatives have never
damaged property and that this business is not a hazard. This company is
professional, courteous and goes above and beyond to accommodate in every
aspect..
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at
602-330-4917.
dot.,

Exhibit F

Lydia k Peirco Linsmoier
From: Raymond Banker PLANDEVX <RaymondEanker©mail.maricopa.gov >
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier
Subject: RN: Regarding: Corral Kraft, LLC-Amendment to Special Use Permit Z2015024
Good morning,
Please see the received email (below) in support of the Z2017101 case. This will be included with the P&Z staff report.
Let me know if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Ray Banker
Planner
Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department
501 N. 44th St, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Office: (602) 506-2364
Email: RayrnondBanker@mail.maricopa.gov
Original Message
From: npeirce@wildblue.not rrnailtompeirce@wildblue.net ]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 5:09 PM
To: Raymond Banker PLANDEVX <RaymondBanker@mail.maricopa.gov >
Subject: Regarding: Corral Kraft, LLC-Amendment to Special Use Permit Z2015024
Eleanor and Kevin Peirce
5708 E. Morning Vista Lane
Cave Creek, Arizona, 85331
npeirce@wildblue.net
Dear Mr. Banker and Others Who May Be Concerned,
We are writing to you in an effort to show our support for the Tiensvold family and their business, Corral Kraft, which
has an A+, Five Star rating from our Better Business Bureau. The Corral Kraft company has been an integral part of our
local equine community since 2005. As far as our family, which lives in a Cave Creek county island of horse properties, is
concerned, there is absolutely every reason to grant Corral Kraft an Amendment to Special Use Permit Z2015024.
The Tiensvold family built a sound-proof structure to control the sound of sawing metal pipes. They have never, to my
knowledge, done anything to harm or cause harm to happen to any near-by livestock or people in the process of
conducting their business. We know this to be true, because we have boarded our horses next door to Corral Kraft on
numerous occasions over the years. We have also visited these same horses at all times of the day and night. We've
never heard any frightening noises from Corral Kraft. Neither our horses nor ourselves have ever been injured or hurt in

any way by Corral Kraft or the Tiensvolci family. To suggest any animal or human has been injured or hurt by these
people is not just malicious, it is ridiculous!
One special thing about living in the Cave Creek equine community, is we all know everything going-on that may concern
our horses or our properties. We have never heard of law enforcement being called out to the Tiensvolcl property.
Please, trust me, we would have heard about it! Corral Kraft is most definitely NOT a hazard to properly located in our
county islands. As year by year our once beautiful Sonoran Desert is developed into tract homes on postage stamp-sized
lots, Corral Kraft is providing the local equine community with premium quality and very secure livestock enclosures.
This becomes increasingly important in view of our rapidly growing population surrounding our so-called county isiands.
As Maricapa County taxpayers and voters, we are concerned our Planning and Development Department has given so
much time and credence to what appears to be unsubstantiated complaints. We will certainly try to be present at the
Maricopa County P&Z hearing on this amendment to support the Tiensvold family.
Sincerely,
Eleanor and Kevin Peirce
2

Exhibit G

> From: Grigg, Kristi (PHOEN1X,ARIZ0NA)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:01 AM
> To: rraymondbanker@mail.maricopa.govr
> Cc: Grigg, Kristi (PHOENIX,ARIZONA)
> Subject: FW: Special Use Permit# Z2015024
> Importance: High
> To Whom This May Concern,
> I am writing on behalf of Tyler
> Tiensvold, Business Owner of Corral Kraft. I do not support the
> complaint against Special Use Permit #Z2015024.
> I live nearby in the
> neighborhood. I have a barn and I raise show horses of considerable
> value and quality. My horses do not nor have they ever suffered in
> any way as a result of the Coral Kraft business. They are healthy,
> maintain their weight and shiny coats.
> Unusual as it may sound, my horses lie down and nap during the day,
> undisturbed. They sleep at night undisturbed and wake in the morning
> at their leisure; I must often wait until the sun rises at 7:00am or
> shortly thereafter for a horse to wake and rise before feeding during
> the winter. I would say it is safe to surmise the 'noise' Coral Kraft
> is producing is hardly substantial if it does not wake my horses...
> I have never had an instance where my
> horses have spooked and bolted from noise at Corral Kraft either. The
> horses are completely unmoved by Corral Kraft. In my opinion said
> claims are bogus.
> I would also like to suggest that
> Tyler is incredibly friendly and polite. He has on numerous occasions
> offered assistance to me with his forklift, bobcat, and other
> equipment. He has performed welding services when in need and quite
> simply has been more than I could ever hope for in a good neighbor,
> Tyler is an honest young man, newly married with a new baby. He is a
> hard working man, making an honest living. In addition, he is
> providing an honest living for three-four other young men who show up
> to work every day to work at Coral Kraft.

> Coral Kraft is located on 44ths St
> just South of Dynamite. This is a very rural area. The majority of
> residents in the neighborhood are 'horse people', own horses, have
> owned, or plan to own horses. Coral Kraft provides a service which
> caters to the equine industry. Corral Kraft in my opinion is an asset
> to the neighborhood.
> Please do not hesitate to contact me
> for further assistance in this matter. I would be happy to provide
> photos and/or video of the neighborhood from my property demonstrating
> the calm and peace, and falsehood of said claim(s).
> Thank you kindly.
> My Best,
> Kristi
> Grigg

Planning & Development
Department
DATE: November 30, 201 7
TO: Han fling and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ray Banker, Planner
SUBJECT: Z2017101 - Corral Kraft, LLC - Agenda item 5
Staff is proposing language changes to recommended approval condition 'k as follows
to further clarify how sound from the operation will be measured:
Proposed Changes to condition 'k':
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed se-u-n-4
iar-e-ef building, and with sound attenuation measures as may be necessary so that
noise emanating from steel cutting on the site does not exceed 55 dB as measured
outside any property line.
New Recommended condition 'k':
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed building,
and with sound attenuation measures as may be necessary so that noise
emanating from steel cutting on the site does not exceed 55 dB as measured
outside any property line.
In addition to the above mentioned recommendation, staff has received several
opposition and support material since writing of the staff report. These documents are
attached and include petitions, individual correspondence, and articles provided by the
opposition. It should be noted that some of these documents are hard to read and may
not be able to be considered if illegible.
Attachments:
Opposition/Support documents (34 pages)
502 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85008 • (602) 506-2364 • (602) 506-3711 fax
> Internet: www.maricopa.goviplanning

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier <Lydialinsmeier@carpenterhazIewood.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:27 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Cc: Eadie Rudder
Subject: Corral Kraft
Attachments: 17049.jpeg
Ray,
I don't know if this will be helpful — attached is a photo of the 'petition' that S. Anne Smith provided to some of the
neighbors. My understanding is she avoided the actual Corral Kraft neighbors.
Thank you,
L.
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
Direct Line: 480-427-2866
Lydia.LinsmeiercarpenterhazIewood.corn
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Phoenix, 480-427-2800, 1400 East Southern Aye, Suite 400, Tempe, Arizona 85282
Tucson, 520-744-9480, 333 North Wilmot Rd, Suite 180, Tucson, Arizona 85711
Prescott, 928-443-0775, 1550 Plaza West Dr, Prescott, Arizona 86303
vvww.carpenterhaziewood.corn
E
The information in this e-mail is ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL and is intended solely for the use by the
individual or entity named above. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you
have received the message in error, then delete it.
This firm is a debt collector. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
1

Atte116011 PillMiele VI.OA Horse Community: ALERT!!!
-The property at 2761.3 N. Street is applying for a Special Use Permit Revision that will
...allow for the manufacturing and construction of steel horse corrals. Among other things, this
--...involves sawing of steel, arc welding that hisses like snakes, and the inevitable crashing from
- bundles of poles falling to the ground.
To allow this type of business in our community, will set an ominous precedent for the erosion of
the integrity of our horse community.
There will be seriously harmful consequences. Horses have extremely sensitive hearing. They
are negatively and dangerously affected by extremes in sound, as well as the chaotic energy and
activity inherent in such an enterprise. As with humans, the long term effect of continual
LuIronaline spikes from this type of environment impacts every system in the body leading to
chronic dysinnetion, overall poor health and decreased performance.
The First Hearing will be held in Phoenix on Thursday, November 30 at 9:30 am, at 205 West
Jefferson St. in the 1305 Auditorium. This hearing is before the Planning and Zoning
Commission. There is a follow-up hearing before the Board of Supervisors, on January 17,201S
it 9:30 am. The SUP number is Z2015024.
Please attend to show your support in maintaining the integrity of this wonderful, peaceful horse
community. If you cannot attend, please sign the enclosed petition and return to me either by
mail or e-mail. Also., you can e-mail a request at: satmesmithl (Thicioud.com
Entail address: sannesmith 1 (ii)icloud.com .44-1
Mailing address: 29834 N Cave Creek Rd
Suite 118-118
Cave Creek AZ 85331

11-27-2017
Cis & Tyler Tiensvoid
Regarding your business in our neighborhood
To whom it may concern,
We are the neighbors living at V626 N 44th Street lust north of the Tiensvold's home. My wife and 1
have no issue with what Cis Tiensvold and her son Tyler Tiensvold are doing with regard to their cottage
business in our neighborhood. We believe they are an asset in that they are providing a service to all
horse owners in our area. We have not seen any extra traffic nor are there any noises we can hear from
any of the work they may be doing at their residence. What we do hear, are the noises from the horse
riders, roping, and rodeo's, but being in a horse property area we welcome them.
We are ok with what they are doing and have no issues.
Rick L. Cox
refr'tA-
RECEIVED NOV 2 8 2011

Raymond Banker - PLAN DEVX
From: Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier <Lydialinsmeier@carpenterhaziewood.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:26 AM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Corral Kraft
Good morning!
I received the below last night — looks like you are still receiving material as well.
From: heatwave9@aol.com
Date: November 28, 2017 at 5:32:28 PM PST
To: mtiensvold@aol.com
Subject: Cottage Industry Special Use Permit Z2017101
To Whom It May Concern:
Corral Kraft, LLC owned and operated by Tyler Tiensvold 27613 N. 44th St., Cave Creek, AZ 85331 is my neighbor. I live
at 27417 N. 44th St. and have since prior to 1990. The Tiensvolds are very good neighbors and it has come to my
attention that they are requesting an amendment to their Cottage Industry Special Use Permit to continue to store and
prepare building materials on their property. This shouldn't be a problem for anyone and it certainly isn't for me. Their
business isn't loud or smelly and does not involve any traffic; therefore, I don't understand why anyone would
object. Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. Thank you for your attention.
Darolyn Shaw
480-363-1615
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier, Esq.
Direct Line: 480-427-2866
Lydia.LinsmeiercarpenterhazIewood.com
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Phoenix, 480-427-2800, 1400 East Southern Ave, Suite 400, Tempe, Arizona 85282
Tucson, 520-744-9480, 333 North Wilmot Rd, Suite 180, Tucson, Arizona 85711
Prescott, 928-443-0775, 1550 Plaza West Dr, Prescott, Arizona 86303
www.carpenterhazIewood.com
The information in this e-mail is ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL and is intended solely for the use by the
individual or entity named above. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you
have received the message in error, then delete it.
1

IssueTrak # 140473 Page 1 of 1
Welcome Banker, Raymond Log Out Issue #
Isst--;i6.3/4) ‘a
Home Main Menu
View Issue #140473
My IssueTrak email issue
Issue Detail L.Acid Note
View
Add Note
Attachments Issue #: 140473
Next Action Last Name: STALWORTHY
Edit First Name: BILLY
Close Citizen Phone Number: 602-402-2016
Clone/Copy Information:
Email Address: NOT GIVEN
Submit Issue
Permit #: 22015024 details
Search Issues
Organization: Planning and Development history
Lookup Issue #
Knowledge Base Submitted By: coggins, Lori on 20-Nov-2017 2:59PM history
Projects Division ID: PNDDevSery - Development Services
Subject: 27613 N 44TH STREET
Reports
Custom Reports
Description: BILLY IS A RESIDENT AND SHE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE USE PERMIT
Log Out CHANGE , SHE WILL BE SENDING AN EMAIL AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
IT IS GOING TO SOMEONE SPECIFIC, IT APPEARS THEY WILL USING LOUD
SAWS?? AND IT WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC
Contact Type: Email
Division Type: Development Services
SubType 1: Customer Service
SubType 2: Customer Assistance
SubType 3:
SubType 4:
Assigned To: CustomerService, PND on 20-Nov-2017 2:59PM details
Adj Time Open: 28:51
Total Time Open: 28:51
Issue Status: I Open `••• history
Priority: Medium
Responsibility
Next Action: Banker, Raymond on 27-Nov-2017 9:30AM 602-506-2364 details
Tavassoll, Farhad OR 20-Nov-2017 3:32PM 602-506-8358 details
Planning on 20-Nov-2017 2:59PM details
Supporting Info
Notes
ReSolution Info
a
7r-A Task AssignedTo Completed Time
A•71c1 Nube
www.issuetrak.com
IssueTrak 9.7- 08-Fe6-2012 - Copyright 0 2001-2012 IssueTrak,
http://rdsa-ithelpdesk.plandev.marieopa.gov/CSIssuoYiew.asp?IssueNbr=140473 11/27/2017

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: Billie Rae <billierae11@gmail.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:14 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Fwd: Z2017101
Ray, please forgive my slipping and send prematurely.
Our reason for communicating is related to the limited use permit
for the case Z2o171o1, the property just around the corner and up
the street from me.
Today I went to the property and spoke with Tyler. He indicated
that they had done the sawing on the property until over year ago
when a complaint was filed by his neighbor, Ann on the north. The
concern now is greater than just the noise. My neighbors have said
that horses were spooked by the dropping of metal pipes off of
trucks delivering large metal piping. Horses do spook at loud
noises even when they can see the source. A woman was
hurt. Therefore, unless the process can be revealed as non-
disturbing as to clanging metal and high pitched sawing noises,
truly as 55 decimals I must oppose the permit. Any further change
impacts the peaceable use our properties and values of real estate in
this area.
Earlier in the day I told Tyler that we have no desire to have them
cease what they presently do, they are established. It is the added
commerce and traffic and noise that attends the activity.
As to the county planners. None are qualified to determine what is
an allowable use in an area that houses families, horses and dogs
and horse related activities. The use of the area IS ESTABLISHED
1

BY THE RESIDENCES HERE. Ray, I am not yelling, just
important point.
Thank you for your attention. I will not attend on Thursday as I
am
unable, however, please consider my input.
Thank you again for your time and the phone call.
I wish you a great day
Billie Rae
HomeSmart Realtor
You Matter Most
602-402-2016
Destiny is not chance; it is not be waited upon,
it is to be created each day we live.
Forwarded message
From: Billie Rae <billieraell(&,gruail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM
Subject: Z2017101
To: raymondbanker@mail maricopa.gov
602 5136 2364
Ray, thank you for your phone call on Monday. I did not have a
chance to call. Therefore this email.
I am asking that you to please send me a copy of the existing use
permit. I have my neighbors telling me that they were sawing
metal against the original use permit and a complaint was made
over a year ago.
I understand from the attorney that the only issue is the building
permit for a building to be enclosed.
2

What we are beginning to experience here on the cherished county
island is a willingness for the county officials to allow special use
permits for NON horse related businesses to set up shop. This has
increased traffic and risk to horse riders, dogs and children.
In addition to this, I understand the county is proposing to pave
Pinnacle Vista. To What end? this has been opposed for before
and is now. We have had the traffic increased already due to the
paving already done. And the traffic drives faster now endangering
me and others. Most of the traffic does not belong in our area. The
only reason to be in our neighborhood should be because we live
here or one has a horse her or are participating in a horse training
or other use.
BACK TO TOPIC
I wish you a great day
Billie Rae
HomeSmart Realtor
You Matter Most
602-402-2016
Destiny is not chance; it is not be waited upon,
it is to be created each day we live.
3

November 29,2017
To Whom It Concerns,
Dr. S.Anne Smith has been kind enough to allow me to keep my horses on
her property. My horses are housed the South-Easternmost corner (closest to the
property in question) in a permanent barn. One of the horses that I brought is a
very sound-sensitive animal. He becomes agitated by sound which would be
considered unnatural to his environment.
When I first brought him to her property he would over-react to the
disharmonious and abrupt noises of crashing pipes, snapping of the arc welder
and abrasive noises of the sawing of metal. Handling the horses in the barn and
riding them in the arena has been dangerous to say the least.
One of the reasons that I brought him to Dr Smith's property was to get him
calm and cooperative; a goal which we did manage to attain during the lull when
the manufacturing plant was shut down due to infraction of the special use
permit. With the exception of the recent "pipe-crashing activities" which have
continued, it has been calm and peaceful and a nice place to ride and spend time
with my horses My fear is that both human and equine safety will again be
compromised should this special use permit be granted for a manufacturing set-
up in an otherwise quiet rural equestrian an community.
Thank you for your consideration, Donna Jo Graham-Dykes

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: S anne Smith <sannesmithl@icloud.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:00 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Fwd: Pinnacle Vista Horse Petition Z2017101
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Trisha Chandler <dreamrealty@cox.net>
Date: November 26, 2017 at 6:22:58 AM MST
To: S anne Smith <sannesrnithl@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Pinnacle Vista Horse Petition
Maybe you can make a video to show them? Most people who don't have a horse wouldn't
understand how dangerous it could be.
Happy to help I live down the street
Trisha
On Nov 26, 2017, at 5:34 AM, S anne Smith <sannesmithl t,icloud.com> wrote:
Thank you so much Trisha. Yes I'm in the direct path of the sound they make. It
makes the horse is crazy. And dangerous
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Trisha Chandler
<dreamrealty@cox.net> wrote:
Hello,
Please see the attached petition we signed off on. I assume you
must live in our area or keep a horse nearby?
Anyhow anything we can do to help protect our quiet equestrian
neighborhood I'm all for. Thanks

Trisha Chandler
602.370.8011
Scanned with Doc Scan
http://itunes.apple.corn/app/id453312964?mt=8
<Untitled-2.pdf>

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: S anne Smith <sannesmith1@icloud.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:01 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLAN DEVX
Subject: Fwd: Z2017101
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: mxlteol <mxlicol@gmail.com>
Date: November 27, 2017 at 8:00:58 PM MST
To: sannesmithl icloud. corn
Let me if this is not acceptable.
Thx
Bassam
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: S anne Smith <sannesmith1@icloud.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Fwd: Special Use Permit objections Z2017101
Attachments: special use permit objection.pdt ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tobey Sheets Polynin <tobeyrae@gmail.com>
Date: November 28, 2017 at 9:58:15 AM MST
To: sannesmithl@icloud.com
Subject: Special Use Permit objections
We cannot attend on Thursday, however we do want to make our objection known. Attached is
the fowl you sent.
Thank you for your diligence in bringing attention to this matter.
1

In reference to the Corral Kraft special use permit application
numberZ2017101, I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled.
However I want to make known that I object to the awarding of the
requested special use permit which would allow industrial activity in the
midst of a residential/horse community. The noise will not be tolerable
and this type of activity will result in a significant negative impact on
property values.
Name & Email Address Phone.
Loin 111 0A-Dy. 1,1a m b/hy c 6 moo 66, 1,„ 61cv-'t7
rwi, 1'6 0 I+z V1o4oyl silo 1Gr1 eyedioo toKk)
Totcul poik,)k-ti‘o ect.e, e hnit41 (5180) 5f,' '"17 Lig
12-obt4- 1,90 I rob poi Lo,pdv.. orykai. (6,02_) 21S- 77P-Al
0-1 c72 7 ti a -7 KJ,
ncbil1/4-e CrerelA__

In reference to the Corral Kraft special use permit application numberZ2017101 I will be unable
to attend the hearing scheduled. However I want to make known that I object to the awarding of
the requested special use permit which would allow industrial activity in the midst of a
residential/Horse community. The noise will not be tolerable and the effect on property values
will be devastating.
Name. Address. Phone. Email
6,1,Liviztv-cwav4 4i/A J,01-,,-,-)v,„?.a4 V3-7-4 IA) '66 -6 -75-7g.,

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: S anne Smith <sannesmithl@icloud.com >
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
Subject: Fwd: How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour
Please print and distribute it to board members thank you
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: S anne Smith <sannesmithaymail.com >
Date: November 28, 2017 at 2:24:08 PM MST
To: sannesmith1@ieloud.com
Subject: Fw: How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Begin forwarded message:
On Friday, November 24, 2017, 1:07 PM, S anne Smith <sannesmith1gieloud.com> wrote:
http://theconversation.cornihow-noise-pollution-is-changing-animal-behaviour-
52339
Sent from my iPad

How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour Page I of 5
Donate to Fight for Truth in Journalism
Your contribution to The Conversation US is fully tax-deductible and wiil help us bring you more evidence-based journalism
from our academic experts.
Make a donation Don't show again
THE CONVERSATION
Academic rigor, joumalislic flair
How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour
December 17, 2016 4.53am EST
Urban noise pushes birds to sing in high pitch and ship sound deafens whales and dolphins. John Haslam, Eric Begin, IKs 1/1/odd Trip, Green Fire
Productions, flickker photos, Jay Ebberly Flickr, CC BY
Noise pollution, generally an unintended byproduct of urbanisation, transport and Author
industry, is a key characteristic of human development and population growth. In some
cases, it is produced intentionally, for example when seismic surveys are being carried
out using powerful airgun arrays to explore and map the seafloor, or active sonar, which
uses sound waves to detect objects in the ocean. Graeme Shannon
Lecturer, Bangor University
http ://the convers ati on. co m/how-no i s e-p o Ilution-i s-changing-anim al-b ehavio ur-52339 11/29/2017

How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour Page 2 of 5
AR of this noise — whether intentional or not — has the ability to alter the acoustic environment of
aquatic and terrestrial habitats. This can have a dramatic effect on the animals that live in them,
perhaps even driving evolutionary change as species adapt to or avoid noisy environments.
Rising noise levels
The dramatic and comparatively recent rise in noise levels is marked in both magnitude and extent,
with an estimated 30% of the European population exposed to road traffic noise levels greater than
55dB (decibels) at night, well above the 40dB target recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Even remote natural areas do not escape the reach of anthropogenic, or manmade, noise. One study
across 22 US national parks demonstrated that this kind of noise was, on average, audible more than
28% of the time.
Noise is not just irritating; we have known for some time that it can have direct human health
impacts. Indeed, chronic exposure to noise levels above 55dB dramatically increases the risks of heart
disease and stroke, while aircraft noise has been shown to impact the development of reading skills in
children attending schools close to busy airports. The WHO estimates that in Europe at least a million
healthy life years are lost every year due to traffic noise.
Noise all around us #bang #vroom #drr #pip-pipl Diego Cervo/wvvw.shutterstock.com
Changing behaviours
http://theconversation.conilhow-noise-pollution-is-changing-animal-behaviour-52339 11/29/2017

How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour
But what are the implications for wildlife, particularly given how important sound production and
hearing are for a range of behaviours, such as locating food, avoiding predators and finding a mate?
For example, bats and dolphins rely on high frequency sonar to detect highly mobile prey, while great
tits, red deer and grasshoppers are among the many species that advertise their dominance and desir-
ability using vocalisations. Elephants can even use sound to determine the threat presented by
different human groups.
Scientific interest in the effects of noise pollution on wildlife has intensified over the past decade and
we are now developing a better understanding of how noise can impact behaviour, population and
community level processes across a range of animal species. Using experimental and observational
approaches to characterise and explore the specific effects of different noise sources, the evidence
generated from these studies is considerable, particularly among songbirds and marine mammals,
which rely heavily on sound and vocal communication.
We now know, for example, that the foraging, vocal behaviour and physiological stress of cetaceans —
whales, dolphins and porpoises — can be impacted by ship noise. This is of particular concern for
species such as the endangered North Atlantic right whale that inhabits coastal US waters that experi-
ence very high levels of shipping traffic. Furthermore, in addition to shifts in distribution and vocal
behaviour, military sonar has also been linked to the stranding of cetaceans.
The impacts are not just limited to marine mammals, considerable negative effects of noise are also
documented in marine and freshwater fish and invertebrates. These include recent studies that have
demonstrated compromised anti-predator behaviour in crabs and eels exposed to ship noise.
In terrestrial habitats, bird diversity and abundance has been shown to decline as a result of chronic
noise levels around cities and along roadways. A number of species have demonstrated adjustments to
their vocal behaviour in an attempt to adapt to the cacophony of human noise. Urban great tits for
example, are able to raise the frequency of their calls to reduce acoustical masking by predominantly
low-frequency urban noise, while European robins adjust the timing of their singing to coincide with
quieter periods in the city. Meanwhile, black-chinned hummingbirds and house finches appear to
actively select noisy areas near active gas wells to avoid nest predation by more disturbance sensitive
species.
http://theconversation.com/how-noise-pollution-is-changing-animal-behaviour-52339 11/29/2017

How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour Page 4 of 5
Bioacoustics, the field that measures sounds of our kind. Arya Falanesca/www.shutterstock.com
Roads are a major source of terrestrial noise due to their spatial extent and the volume of traffic. A
2003 study calculated that 83% of the lower 48 states of the US was within about ikm of a road. I
have been working with colleagues at Colorado State University and the National Park Service to
explore the effects of road noise on the prairie dog, a social mammal.
Our research demonstrated that prairie dogs, which commonly live in habitats near roads and urban
areas, significantly reduced their foraging and increased their vigilance behaviour when exposed to
road noise. Such shifts in behaviour could have impacts on their long-term population health particu-
larly in combination with other stressors such as disease and habitat loss.
Road noise has also been shown to impair the foraging efficiency of bats and alter vocal communica-
tion in frogs and invertebrates.
Difficulties of measurement
Studying noise isn't an easy thing to do. First of all, sound levels cannot accurately be measured and
defined using a single absolute scale, such as those used for temperature, rainfall and wind speed. For
simplicity we often just refer to a decibel level, but this does not take into account the duration and
frequency of the acoustical signal. The specific effects of noise also need to be disentangled from the
sources of disturbance that often accompany it, including human presence, habitat fragmentation and
chemical pollution.
The need to further understand the complex biological effects of noise and establish scientifically rele-
vant thresholds of noise exposure is a priority for human health and wildlife conservation. Rapid
development, urbanisation and population growth are set to continue into the future. As a result we
need to ensure a collaborative effort between scientists, industry and government to protect natural
soundscapes where possible, while also promoting new technology and approaches that mitigate the
effects of noise.
http ://theconversation. corn/how-noise-pollution-is- changing-animal-behaviour-52339 11/29/2017

How noise pollution is changing animal behaviour Page 5 of 5
Man made noise is a relatively recent phenomenon, particularly in evolutionary terms, but scientific
studies have demonstrated that it has the potential to adjust behaviour, alter physiology and even
restructure animal communities. Ultimately, such a strong selection pressure could drive evolu-
tionary change. These are complex questions that are now being explored by experts across a range of
disciplines from animal behaviour to bioacoustics.
Bats Dolphin Bioacoustics Behavioral ecology Urban noise Animal behavior songbird whale noise pollution
Sound waves
http://theconversation.com/how-noise-pollution-is-changing-animal-behaviour-52339 11/29/2017

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL Slovak Anim. Sci., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123
AND FOOD CENTRE C 2014 NPPC
RESEARCH IN FOR ANIMAL ISSN 1337-9984
PRODUCTION NITRA
Review
EFFECT OF NOISE ON PERFORMANCE, STRESS, AND BEHAVIOUR
OF ANIMALS
J. BROUeEK
NAFC - Research Institute for Animal Production Nitra, Slovak Republic
ABSTRACT
The paper deals with findings in animal's response to noise. Factors including species, gender, age, and length of exposure on
metabolism, performance, health, reproduction, and behaviour are discussed. The review covers research carried out on farming
animals mainly, but contains also general literary sources on response from laboratory animals. This paper summarises the
auditory range and some typical levels of sound that have been recorded for farm animals inside and outside housing, during
transport and lairage stay. Effects of continuous and sudden noise on animals are also presented in detail. More physiological and
behavioural responses have been described as increased hormonal production, increased heart rate, and reduction in production.
Animal species exhibit a wide variety of responses to noise. Some animal species are more sensitive than others, because they
may exhibit different forms or strengths of responses.
Key words: noise; animal; housing; performance; stress; behaviour
INTRODUCTION Sensitivity to noise
Noise is described as unwanted sound, either
In current animal husbandry noise has become chronic or intermittent, and can be described in
an increasingly great but little noticed problem. Noise terms including its frequency, intensity, frequency
produced in intensive animal housing by ventilation spectrum, and shape of sound pressure through time
system, feeding and excrement removal lines and by (Burn, 2008). Decibel (dB) is the unit for measuring the
animals themselves is a potential stressor and affects not intensity of sound. It is equal to ten times the logarithm
only animals but also the tending personnel, to the base ten of the ratio of the intensity of the sound
The purpose of the current study was to determine to be measured to the intensity level of sounds of
effects of noise on animals, especially farming animals, sonic reference sound, usually the lowest audible note
and compare the results of previous studies on noise of the same frequency (B = log 10 (P 1/P 2), where
assessment in particular housing situations to demonstrate B —Bel, and P 1 and P2 are power levels. I Bel is equal to
the impact and significance of the noise problem for 10 decibels), Frequency means the number of vibrations
design of housing, and management practices. This topic per second of the air in which the sound is propagating
is also relevant to the welfare of animals, because high- and it is measured in Hertz (Hz) (Berglung et al., 1999).
frequency noise and intermittent sounds are generally The interpretation of noise assessment in animal
perceived as the most alarming. housing is difficult as goals and methodology differ
Correspondence: E-mail. broucek®vuz-v.sk Received: December 18, 2013
Jan Brou'Cek, NAVC - Research Institute for Animal Production Nitta, Accepted: January 31, 2014
Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 LuZianky, Slovak Republic
Tel,: +421 37 6546 280 Fax: +42] 37 6546 483
111

Review Slovak.). Anita. Sc!., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123
substantially between studies (SchAfter at al., 1997). (Phillips, 2009). Indeed, cattle, with an auditory range
Whether or not a sound is to be described as noise between 25 Hz and 35 kHz, can detect lower pitched
therefore depends on the subjective notion as to sounds than other farm species (Heffner and Heffner
whether listening brings about agreeable or disagreeable 1993). Dairy breeds are more sensitive to noise than
feelings. The condition under which a recipient is beef breeds (Lanier at aL, 2000).
subjected to noise is important (Algers etal., 1978), The The auditory range of sheep is 125 Hz to 40 kHz
effects of noise on animal productivity and behaviour with the most sensitive frequency a little higher than
depend not only on its intensity or loudness (d13), its cattle and pigs at 10 kHz (Heffner, 1998). Sheep are most
frequency (Hz), and its duration and pattern (including sensitive at 7 kHz (Ames and Arehart, 1972).
vibration potential), but also on the hearing ability of the Pigs' hearing range is similar to that of humans,
animal species and breeds, the age and physiological state but with a shift toward ultrasound (Kittawormat and
of the animal at the time of exposure. It also depends on Zimmerman, 2011). The auditory range of pigs is
the experience of the animal what sounds the animal has between 55 Hz and 40 kHz and their sense of hearing is
been exposed to during its lifetime (noise exposure history more sensitive in the range 500 Hz to 16 kHz, particularly
of the animal) and to the predictability of the acoustic acute around 8 kHz (Heffner and Heffner, 1993). The
stimulus (Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans, 2009). frequency range for reasonable detection varies between
How animals perceive noise? The effect of 42 Hz and 40.5 kHz, with a region of best sensitivity from
noise on the central nervous system is dependent on 250 Hz to 16 kHz (Heffner, 1998). Heffner and Heffner
the state of the brain. In an exhausted individual the (1993) showed that the frequency range of pigs was an
compensatory mechanisms are more vulnerable than in octave higher than the human frequency range, 40 Hz -
a rested individual. Intense noise exposure can damage 40 kHz. In addition, they found that the quietest sound
the cochlea and inner ear and lead to a cascade of which pigs can hear is 8 dB louder than the minimum
auditory effects along the entire central auditory cascade sound level which humans can hear. However, the sound
(Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans, 2009). A sudden and pressure level at which sound becomes painful to pigs is
unexpected noise gives a dilatation of the pupil (Algers unknown.
at al., 1978). Sound levels of approximately 40 dB are Mader at al. (1973, cit. Algers et aL, 1978)
suggested as the appropriate level during the night. observed that birds had the greatest increase of auditory
Sound levels above this have been shown to decrease the threshold in the higher frequency ranges after exposure
quality of sleep (Algers at al., 1978). However, the noise to noise of 95-100 dB.
levels in most husbandry buildings are considerably Animals not only have to accept the noise,
greater than 40 dB. but they also emit (Manteuffel et al., 2004; Brumm at
Susceptibility to noise hearing is species aL, 2009). Rodents not only produce sounds that we
dependent, and it has been shown to be genetically can hear, but also produce and hear frequencies that are
determined (limy, 1992; Lanier at al., 2000). Animals inaudible to humans (above 20 kHz), perceiving sounds
have a different spectrum of audible sounds with up to 80 kHz stimulus (Caste lhano-Carlos and Baumans,
maximum sensitivity at frequencies that are inaudible 2009). Vocalisations of animals are important for
to humans (Voipio, 1997). The rat's peak sensitivity lies communication and they also respond to the vocalisations
between about 8 and 50 kHz (Burn, 2008). The lowest of other species (Phillips, 2009) as might be expected
frequency rats have been reported to hear is 0.25 k_Hz in herd animals that evolved in multi-species grazing
and the highest is 80 kHz. When comparing rat and environments and which can be prey of carnivores.
human hearing sensitivity, human values were about 10- Previous research with cattle and pigs has indicated that
20 dB higher than rat's. Humans are most sensitive to vocalizations are an indicator of stress.
noise in the range of 500 Hz to 4 kHz which includes the Cattle vocalisations generally range between 50
range of normal speech (i.e. within this range we can hear and 1,250 Hz (Kiley, 1972; cit. Watts and Stookey, 2000).
quieter sounds) (Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans, 2009). Vocalisations of newly-weaned calves with fundamental
The sensitivity of cattle, sheep and pigs to sound, frequencies as low as 31 Hz have been recorded (Watts
and the levels to which they are exposed, has been and Stookey, 2000). Weeks et al. (2009) recorded
reviewed by more authors. Cattle hear high-frequency mean levels of vocalisations from cattle in the range
sounds much better than humans, their high-frequency 80-90 dB and sheep vocalisations at around 70 dB.
hearing limit being 37 kHz, compared with only 18 kHz The use of high-frequency vocalisation was a powerful
for humans (Heffner, 1998). Their best audible sound is indicator of behavioural thermoregulation in pigs
also at a higher frequency, at about 8 kHz, compared (Hillmann at al., 2004; Malmkvist at al., 2004).
with 4 kHz for humans (Phillips, 2009). However,
thresholds for discomfort for cattle was noted at 90-100 Noise and its source
dB, with physical damage to the ear occurring at 110 dB Several studies have been published showing
112

Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
the different sounds that can occur inside the animal overall sound pressure level was noted in naturally
facility (Castelhano-Carios and Baumans, 2009). ventilated buildings but not in mechanically ventilated
Husbandry procedures cause the loudest sounds, ones. Weeks et al. (2009) measured the sound from gates
especially if metallic equipment is involved or if the clanging at a consistent 85 c113. The sound levels varied
work is performed in a hurried manlier (Burn, 2008). between 85-138 dB in pig fattening halls and included
Noise experienced during housing of farm animals can be the vocalisations of the pigs as well as background noise
short-term or chronic (Clough, 1999). The sources of (Weeks el al,, 2009).
noise can be technical devices, routine works (opening Observations from 13 laying hen farms showed
and closing doors, changing pens, washers, push carts, that most noise was produced by feed supplier and
workers' speech, feed dispensing), basal sound levels distribution systems (Oh et al., 2011). During the period
caused by mechanical ventilation, animals activities 2008-2010 noise measurement was carried out on two
(climbing and chewing on fences), and by their poultry farms accounting for a total capacity of 650,000
vocalizations (Zitnak etal., 2011; Mihina et al, 2012). heads of poultry (broilers, layers, and pullets). Measured
Sound pressure levels exceeding 75 dB have also been values of equivalent sound level in the surroundings
reported at frequencies in excess of 60 kHz in some of farms were low (38.1-43.8 dB), the high value of
laboratory animal housing (Morgan and Tromborg, 2007). noise on the farm has been caused by the handling of
A background sound level of 50 d13 has been suggested to feedstuffs (79.3 dB, when the measurement performed
avoid disturbance to animals or personnel (Clough, 1999). 6 m from the containers) and the ventilation systems
According to Venglovsky et al. (2007), short-lasting (67.1 dB, when the measurement performed 3 in from
but intensive noise can have harmful effect not only on the suction-fan) (Sfstkova, 2011).
animals but also on personnel. This issue requires further Generally, the sources of harmful noise in animal
monitoring and attention. Although differences exist housings are various: feeding 104-115 dB, mating
in perceived loudness of the same sound, occupational 94-115 dB, high-pressure cleaning 105 dB, feed mixing
noise limitations have been established for workers, 88-93 dB (VenglovskY et al., 2007). According to
and employees should be provided appropriate hearing §istkova et al. (2010), hygienic limits are exceeded only
protection and monitored for their effects (Mc Bride et al., during distribution of feed and bedding and thus only
2003; Lendelova etal., 2013). The noise contributes to the for a short time.
development of some diseases and disorders caused by Studies reviewed the claims by farmers linking
stressful conditions such as high blood pressure and other adverse effects of aircraft or helicopter noise on livestock.
psychosomatic diseases (Slstkova and Peterka, 2009). Farm owners concluded that aircraft overflights can
Weeks et al. (2009) measured 75-90 (mean 84) affect feed intake, growth, or production rates in domestic
dB in cattle barn, while Algers et al. (1978) found the animals (Cottereau, 1978). Helicopters are commonly
noise range from 61-73 dB. Weeks (2008) noted typical used for managing wildlife populations, but their effect
values for grazing cattle at 35 dB. The noise environment on wildlife behaviour is often ignored. The severity of
in animal production contributes not only means of response to disturbance may vary with species, group
mechanization end equipment, but also the noise emission size, social groups, sex, age, vegetation cover, season,
emerging manifestation of living animals (biological terrain, and distance from the aircraft or helicopter
noise). The background noise level (biological noise) (Gladwin etal., 1988).
emerging from the biological manifestations of dairy The exposure of farm animals to noise has been
cows ranged from 72.7-83.8 dB (S'istkova et a!, 2010). identified as a potential stressor not only in housing
The average levels of noise measured by Algers (Tailing etal., 1998; Schaffer et al., 2001; Correa et al.,
et al. (1978) were 58.6 dB for fattening pigs. They 2010) but also during the transport and at the abattoir
reported that pigs in mechanically ventilated buildings (Agnes et al., 1990; Geverink etal., 1998; De la Fuente
were frequently exposed to noise levels greater than et al., 2007). The average noise level measured during
70 dB. In another study the noise recorded in fattening transport was 91 dB at the frequency range 20 - 16 kHz
units of pig farms ranging from 69-78 dB. Tailing et al. (Tailing etal., 1998). Animals are often exposed to acute
(1998) recorded noise at six farms, on five transporters noise levels before slaughter in lairages where noise is
and at four abattoirs. The average sound pressure level caused by ventilation fans and operational equipment.
measured in mechanically ventilated pig buildings The negative impact of noise on animal welfare in
was 73 dB, naturally ventilated buildings were on an lairages has also been reported by Grandin (1998) and
average 10 dB quieter. The frequency content of the Geverink etal. (1998).
sound present on farms ranged from 20-6.3 kHz. Peaks Noise developed during transport was shown
in frequency, probably caused by fans, were identified to increase the heart rates of free-ranging cattle
in the mechanically ventilated buildings but not in the (Albright and Arave, 1997), while cattle habituated to
naturally ventilated buildings. A diurnal variation in the sounds of cars and trucks will readily graze along
113

Review Slovak' Anim. Sc., 47, 2014(2).' 111-123
highways and seldom react (Grandin, 1997). Sheep the signals. The hypothalamus and the hypophysis are
appear to adapt to increased noise levels, particularly activated; the adrenal cortex and medulla are stimulated
when these are relatively continuous, such as the noise and secrete their respective hormones. The uterine blood
of transport vehicles at around 60-90 dB, although they flow, gas-interchange, nutrition and interchange of
may show an initial rise in heart rate. Sheep in lairage waste products between fetus and mother are decreased.
appeared more responsive to mechanical noise such The reproductive function of rats can also be affected
as metal banging and hosing than to noises of animal by sounds. Zondek (1964, eit Castelhano-Carlos and
origin. Weeks at al. (2009) found mean sound levels from Baumans, 2009) showed that exposure of rats to noise
clanging gates and other fittings in 11 sheep lairages to be of 50-80 kHz at 80-90 dB in the four days during the
76 dB and they recorded sheep vocalisations at around mating period reduced fertility by 73.2 %. Exposure to
70 dB. One study that measured sound levels during the 100 dB of 3-12 kHz for one minute during the four days
transport of lambs found that the sound pressure level of copulation reduced fertility by 70-80 %.
was continuously above 90 dB (Algers at al., 1978). Zondek at al. (1964, cit Castelhano-Carlos and
Other experiments have shown that pigs are Baumans, 2009) also showed the influence of sound on
exposed to higher sound pressure levels during the gonadotropic functions in mature rabbits. Losses
transport and at the abattoir with different intensity, have been reported from mink farms in the form of
frequency and duration (Correa at al., 2010). Tailing et premature births and insufficient lactation in connection
al. (1998) noted that noise recorded in fattening units of with exposure to sonic booms. There are reports that the
pig farms ranges from 69 to 78 dB, from 88 to 96 dB females kill their Own offspring (Algers etal., 1978).
at below 16 kHz during transport and between 85 and Neural and neuroendocrine systems are possible
97 dB at the abattoir. In four lairages they measured mechanisms for the effects of noise on feed efficiency.
noise levels between 76 and 86 dB, with up to 97 dB Sound emission at the frequency of 2 kHz in noise of 75
in the prestunning pens. The movement of machinery as dB, 85 dB, and 95 dB was found to contribute to appetite
well as pig vocalisations was found to be a major source reduction of animals (Cwynar and Kolacz, 2011).
of noise and it was concluded that the sound levels and Algers and Jensen (1991) found reduced milk yield in
types of sound pigs were exposed to in transit and in dairy cows exposed to 1.4 h of 80-100 dB of noise twice
lairage were likely to be aversive, and should therefore daily. A three weeks study found no differences between
be regulated to improve welfare (Tailing at al., 1998). intensities of 70 dB abd 80 d13 noise when produced in
Rabaste at al. (2007) recently measured sound levels in an autotandern milking parlour (Kauke and Savary,
Canadian lairages in the range 82-108 dB. 2010). Sudden noise of 105 dB could, however, decrease
The noise intensity to which poultry is exposed the quantity of milk at the next milking. An ejection in
in slaughterhouses during slaughter is relatively high, progress might even be interrupted (Algers at al., 1978).
varying in the range of 80-100 dB (Chloupek at al., According to Kovite'ik and SottnIk (1971), noise as
2009). high as 80 d13 had no negative effect on dairy cows.
Feed intake was increased, milk yield was unchanged,
Health and performance and indices of the rate of milk-releasing were improved.
Scientific sources indicate that noise in farm However, immediate exposure to a high-intensity noise
animal environments is a detrimental factor to animal (105 dB) resulted in decreased feed consumption, milk
health. Especially longer tasting sounds can affect the yield, and intensity of milk release. Gradual increase
health of animals. Noise directly affects reproductive of noise to 105 dB resulted in a less-negative response.
physiology or energy consumption (Escribano et Gygax and Nosal (2006) investigated on 50 dairy farms
al., 2013). Noise may also have indirect effects on the effect of vibration and noise on somatic cell counts
population dynamics through changes in habitat use, in milk. Somatic cell counts increased with an increasing
courtship and mating, reproduction and parental care intensity of vibration but not with acoustic noise.
(Rabin et al., 2003). Male rats exposed to noise showed Unexpected high intensity noise (above 110 dB),
oligospermia and modifications of the testicle structure, such as low altitude jet aircraft overflights at milking
The ovaries and the uterus diminished significantly in time could reduce effectiveness of the milk ejection
female rats after a noise exposure of 110 dB for five reflex, decrease efficiency of milk removal, increase
minutes 15 times per day for 11 days at 375-500 Hz. residual milk, and lead to overall reduction in milk yield.
Remaining estrus occurs after noise exposure as well. However, a majority of the studies reviewed suggests
Increase in abortion frequency and fetus resorption, that there is little or no effect of aircraft noise on cattle.
or reduction of fetus weight have been also registered Adverse effects of low-altitude flights have been noted in
(Algers at al., 1978), some studies but have not been uniformly reproduced in
According to Geber (1966) noise is received other reports (Manci at al., 1988). A number of studies
by the mother's ear, the different brain cells integrate investigated the effects of aircraft noise and sonic
114

Slovak Sc., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
booms on the milk production of dairy cows. Milk yields was increased difficulty for handling individuals.
were not affected. Beyer (1983) found that helicopters
caused worse reaction than other low-aircraft overflights. Metabolism and stress
However, helicopters at 9 to 18 m overhead did not affect Noise has been demonstrated to induce a variety
milk production and abortion rates of cows and heifers of physiological changes in mammals, such as changes
(Dufour, 1980; Gladwin et al., 1988). Cows exposed in the cardiovascular homeostasis and in the secretion
to recorded jet noise just before milking showed no of hormones. Through hearing impulses are given to
behavioural or productivity responses during 21days the brain stem and the hypothalamus. From forrnatio
treatment periods (Head et al., 1993). reticularis the sympathetic nervous system is influenced.
Noise at 75 dB increased average daily Via the hypophysis, adrenocorticolropic hormone
weight gain of lambs and improved their feed (ACTH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) the
efficiency compared to control and the 100 d13 groups. hypothalamus gives signals to the adrenal medulla and
Acclimatization to sound was evident (Ames, 1978). the thyroid gland. The parasympathetic nervous system
Pigs exposed to 90 d13 prolonged or intermittent is also influenced and has a mainly reversed effect
noise decreased growth (Otten at al., 2004). The number compared to the sympathetic nervous system (Algers at
of pigs farrowed and the number of survivors were not al., 1978; Manteuffel, 2002).
influenced by exposure of the parents to loud sound Noise may be a potential stressor causing the
during mating, or exposure of sows to reproduced sounds organism to react in farm animal husbandry. High
at 120 dB for 12 hours daily beginning 3 days before noise exposure has also been reported to cause cellular
farrowing and continuing until their piglets were weaned effects. Ultrastructural alterations in myocardium and
(Bond, 1971). Studies using simulated aircraft noise at adrenal glands have been shown in rats exposed to noise
levels of 100 dB to 135 dB found only minor effects on of 100 d13 for 12 h. DNA damage was also found to be
rate of feed utilization, weight gain, food intake, and associated with noise exposure (Castelhano-Carlos and
reproduction rates of boars and sows (Manci etal., 1988; Baumans, 2009). Loud sound is well known for adverse
Dufour, 1980). effects on blood pressure and heart rate in humans and
According to Campo et al. (2005) noise seems to animals (Geverink at al., 1998; Morgan, Tromborg,
affect adversely the productive performance of the birds. 2007). The most obvious effect is a general stress reaction
When poultry are transported to intermittent with higher secretion of ACTH giving an increase of
loud noise, rate of laying eggs and growth rate were adrenocortical hormones in the blood (Burrow at al.,
decreased and mortality increased (Oh at al., 2011). 2005). Reactions occur in the circulatory system and in
Broiler chickens exposed to 110 dB aircraft noise for the gastrointestinal motility via the sympathetic nervous
five minutes every 20 minutes each day and every three system. Other effects are sleep disturbances, changes
nights for nine weeks from birth showed no difference in the glucose metabolism of the liver, changes in the
in growth compared to a control group. Egg productivity enzymatic activity of the kidneys, and an increase of
was affected at exposure levels as high as 120 to 130 dB. eosinophils percentage in blood, mid immunosuppression
Noise at 90 dB seemed not to affect productivity and egg (Algers at al., 1978).
quality of laying hens (Oh at al., 2011). Noise research has been carried out mainly
Generally, exposure to sudden, intense noise cause on man and laboratory animals. These investigations
reduced egg production in fowls. Pheasants are reported have shown. that noise causes a general stress reaction
to have broken their eggs, while suffocation in panic- influencing most organs. Stress reaction causes
struck was observed in fowls (Algers at al., 1978). short-term effects and also partly long-term effects.
Exposition to 120 d13 for 84 days showed no Physiologically, prolonged exposure to intense noise
significant influence in quantitative and differential is associated with increased activity of the autonomic
sperm counts of roosters, but these sperms used on nervous system. Its prolonged activation is correlated
insemination worsened the hatchability of eggs (Algers with increased activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-
et al., 1978). Noise acting for a long time reduces adrenal system, elevated metabolic rates, increased blood
productivity of eggs. More severe responses are possible pressure, and tachycardia (Ames, 1978; Morgan and
depending on the number of birds, frequency of noise Trotnborg, 2007). According to Weeks (2009) loud noise
exposure, environmental conditions, and on experience can cause disturbance of sleep. Long-term noise exposure
of animals (Gladwin at al., 1988). Study involving caused a decrease in plasma glucocorticoids and an
turkeys examined the differences between simulated increase in plasma catecholatnines. ACTH and cortisol
versus actual over flight aircraft noise (Bowles at al., concentrations (Often at al., 2004; Kanitz at al., 2005).
1990). Findings suggested that turkeys habituated to However, not only prolonged stress but also repeated
noise quickly and no growth rate differences between the distress is dangerous. Kanitz at al, (2005) indicated that
experimental and control groups were noted while there exposure of domestic pigs to repeat noise stress causes
115

Review SlovakJ.Anim. Sc., 47, 2O14(2): 111-123
changes in neuroendocrine regulations. elevated heart rates when exposed to 100 dB. It was
The physiological responses of dairy cows to found that in comparison to a control group carried out
noise were reported by Broucek et al. (1983). The in a 65 dB, the increased intensity of sound emission
sound of a tractor engine (97 dB) significantly increased causes stress in experimental animals (Cwynar and
glucose concentration and leucocyte counts and Kolacz, 2011).
markedly reduced the level of hemoglobin in the blood. Ames (1971) published trial with growing lambs.
The same authors treated primiparous cows individually Each animal was exposed to a control period (63 dB
by the 30 min noise of 110 dB, frequency 1 kHz in an background), followed by 3 weeks treatment periods
open-field arena. Highly significant increase of glycemia, of 75 and 90 dB. Noise intensities of 90 dB noise
non-esterified fatty acids content and creatinine under inhibited the release of thyroxine and triiodthyronine.
the effect of accoustic exposition were recorded. Significant decrease in the lymphatic tissue of the thymus
-Haemoglobin level dropped highly significantly. After was recorded in guinea-pigs intermittantly exposed to
the repetition of stress after the 2''' calving similar trend 139-144 dB noise for 8 hours a day for six weeks
was recorded, but the changes were smaller. It refers to (Algers et al., 1978). Manci et al. (1988) and Gladwin
the habituation (Broucek et al., 1988a). In another study et al. (1988) demonstrated no adverse effects on the
by Broucek el al. (1988b), cows were divided into three thyroid and adrenal gland condition of pigs subjected to
groups: mothers and daughters, sisters after mothers observed aircraft noise.
and sisters after bulls. The reaction of daughters was, Physiological and behavioural studies have
in contrast to mothers, less pronounced. In increasing identified noise stress during housing (Schaffer et al.,
glucose and creatinine, a highly significant relationship 2001). Pigs exposed to 90 dB prolonged or intermittent
(r = 0.659***; r = 0.549") was noted between mothers noise increased cortisol, ACTH, noradrenaline to
and their daughters. A non-significant correlation was adrenaline ratios (Otten et al., 2004). Acute sound
found in the elevation of non-esterified fatty acids exposure was found to increase heart rate (Tailing et
(r 0.568) and creatinine (r = 0.492) between older and al., 1996). This response was stronger for a frequency
younger sisters. The reactions of primiparous cows on of 8 Id-lz than for 500 Hz and for an intensity of 97
noise load were influenced by their fathers. We found the dB than for 85 dB. The heart rate of piglets increased
differences in frequency of heart rate, haemoglobin, non- more in response to high frequency sounds (Tailing et
esterified fatty acids, glycaetnia, and thyroxine contents. al., 1996; Kittawornrat and Zimmerman, 2011). Trials
In another trial, pure-tone sound (1 kHz, showed that pigs respond with an increase in heart rate
110 dB) increased blood glucose, nonesterified fatty and plasma gluco cortico ids when exposed to a short-term
acids and creatinin values in blood serum, and decreased noise stress (Tailing etal., 1998). A single and shorttenn
the level of hemoglobin, with a slight decrease in noise exposure of pigs at 120 dB was found to increase
thyroxin in plasma. Waynert et al. (1999) reported that plasma glucocorticoid concentrations, but had no effect
beef cattle subjected to noise exposure for 1 min per day on plasma catecholamines (Kemper et al,, 1976; cit.
over 5 days displayed an overall steady reduction in heart Venglovsk)i et al., 2007). In another study, Kanitz et
rate. al. (2005) exposed pigs to daily or three times weekly
Sounds produced by humans might also be noise at 90 dB for two hours. This caused both short-term
stressful for farm animals Loud cry causes stress adrenocortical and long-term stress effects.
responses in farm animals (Heinsworth et al., 2003). Cannulated pigs were exposed to either a daily
Shouting on dairy cows appears to be very aversive stimulation with noise (2 h, 90 dB), or to the same
(Pajor et al., 2000). Noise made by humans shouting stimulus three times a week. Noise exposure caused
and slamming of metal gates increases heart rate and an increase of corticosteroid binding globulin, ACTH
activity in cattle (Waynert et al., 1999). Lanier et al. and cortisol levels in daily stimulated pigs in first
(2000) also noted that cattle appeared more stressed by week followed by a subsequent decrease until week 4.
intermittent loud human vocalisation, particularly when The ACTH and cortisol response of the second group
high-pitched like a child's. Unexpected high intensity increased after week 1 and was significantly elevated
noise, such as low altitude jet aircraft overflights in week 4. There were also significant structural
with more than 110 dB at milking time could provoke modifications in the adrenal gland of first group of pigs
increase peripheral or mammary release of resulting in differentiated effects on the adrenal cortex
catechol amines (Albright and Arave, 1997). and medulla (Kanitz et al., 2005). These findings show
Arehart and Ames (1972) observed that the that pigs are very sensitive to noise and they should not
adrenal and pituitary weights declined in sheep after be exposed to constant or sudden noise. Therefore, noise
noise exposure. Prolonged exposure to loud noise of levels above 85 dB must be avoided in that part of any
100 dB for 8 h increased their respiration rate. Lambs building where pigs are kept (Fottrell, 2009).
which were not previously exposed to loud noise had Noise intensities of 115 dB were effective in
116

Slovak.]: Anitn. Set., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
interrupting brooding in hens (Gross, 1990). Acute helicopters or aircrafts is important in predicting the
noise exposures at 80 dB and 100 dB in broilers consequences of the disturbance on the ecology,
increased corticosterone level after 10 min of exposure welfare and behaviour of exposed free kept farming or
(Chloupek et aL, 2009). The chickens were exposed wildlife animals (Tracey andElem, 2007).Although some
to sound of 95 dB which lasted 120 min every day studies reported the effects of aircraft noise on domestic
during different age periods. This chronic stress caused animals as inconclusive, a majority of the literature
significant changes in histological structure of their reviewed indicates that domestic animals exhibit
adrenal glands (ild6 et al., 2011). behavioural responses to overflights but generally seem
Noise treatment of 80 dB resulted in a to habituate to the disturbances over a period of time.
significant elevation of heterophil to lymphocyte Exposure of laboratory animals to noise induced
ratio indicating stress response of the broilers. Noise increased abnormal behaviour, suppressed exploratory
treatment of both 70 and 80 dB intensities also resulted behaviour, and impaired learning. It has been reported
in a significant elevation of basophil granulocytes that guinea pigs will jump when exposed to sudden very
(Bedanova et al., 2010). Chloupek et al. (2009) simulated loud noise (139-143 d13), reduce activity and remain
slaughterhouse sounds to which broilers were exposed huddled together for up to 30 minutes afterwards.
for 10 min in the test room. Noise stimuli of both 80 Tooth grinding was also observed in male guinea pigs
dB and 100 dB intensities induced a highly significant subjected to frequent loud noise over a period of 6 weeks
elevation in the plasma corticosterone level in broilers (Johnson, 2006).
when compared to the control birds. McFarlane and Different levels of background noise were shown
Curtis (1989) reported that continuous noise for seven to influence learning and behaviour in rats (Castelharto-
days at the level 80 or 95 dB did not have a significant Carlos and Baumans, 2009). Guinea-pigs showed the
effect on the plasma corticosterone concentration of most marked reduction in activity when exposed as
broiler chickens. The noise during transport increased compared to rats which appeared least affected by
heart and breathing rates, and secretion of stress hormone noise exposure. After the noise was turned off there was
of poultry (Oh et at., 2011). an increase in the general activity of mice as well as of
Although the current legislation requires that the rats. At the beginning of the exposure all the animals
noise level be minimised, the noise intensity to which huddled in a group. Another reaction of mice and rats
poultry is exposed during production life is relatively was freezing into a motionless stance. When rats were
high, varying in the range of 80-90 dB. exposed to 95 dB at 0.5-5 kHz for two 5-minutes periods
per day for 28 weeks, their behaviour changed and above
Behaviour all they became aggressive (Algers et aL, 1978). Sudden
It has been stated in literature that excessive sounds are probably also more startling than those with
noise has an influence on behaviour and coordination gradual onsets (Burn, 2008).
Mammals in particular appear to react to sudden higher In open field behaviour, continuous noise of
intensity noise, with responses including the startle 85 dB was shown to increase defecation and reduce
response, freezing, and fleeing from the sound source. both social activities and non-social activities (sniffing,
Compared with chronic background or repetitive noise, grooming or crawling) of rats when compared with
this aperiadie or unpredictable noise is especially 50 dB, 65 dB or 75 dB. Although noise of moderate
effective for provoking distress responses. Most animals intensity is commonly present during experiments on
become less responsive to sounds emitted for long periods animal learning and memory, its impact has not been
or at regular intervals, explored fully (Prior, 2006). Noise-exposed rats made
The degree of animal reaction varied with fewer errors, explored less and finished their trials
species of animal, age and individual. The character sooner. Results show that the acoustic environment is
of the behaviour reactions observed that domestic an important variable in studies with animal models of
animals experience from excessive noise is disturbing learning and memory.
their well being (McAdie et al., 1993; McGlone and Many studies indicate that sudden, novel sounds
Swanson, 2010). Animal activity may be increased at seem to affect cattle behaviour more than continuous
background noise. Particular states of emotion may thus high noise (Head et al., 1993; Grandin, 1998; Arnold
be accompanied by specific behaviours. Animals were et al., 2007). When the aircraft was 152 m above
also reported to tend to be more active in the morning ground level, the cattle ran for less than 10 meters and
periods than in the afternoon periods tested, which resumed normal activity within one minute. Unexpected
might be related to the arrival of staff and beginning of high intensity noise, such as low altitude jet aircraft
the working day with a general increase in noise levels overflights (above 110 dB), at milking parlour could
(Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans, 2009). provoke adverse behaviour, such as kicking or stomping
An understanding of animal response to (Morgan and Tromhorg, 2007).
117

Review SlovakJ. Anim. Eel., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123
The noise threshold expected to cause a et al., 1991). Caribous (Rangifer tarandus) respond to
behavioural response by cattle is 85 to 90 dB (Manci et the sound produced by aircraft flyovers with increased
al., 1988). Noises greater than threshold have provoked activity, although the degree of reaction varies with time
retreat, freezing, or strong startle response (Morgan and of year (Maier et al., 1998). Similar effects of aircraft
Tromborg, 2007). When the transmitter of ultrasound noise have been found in mountain sheep (Bleich et al.,
was switched on at a distance of 1 m, calves got up and 1994; Weisenberger etal., 1996).
orientated towards the sound source. After 30 s, all calves Changes in behaviour can adversely affect
had their ears directed away from the sound source. wildlife and reduce the effectiveness of management
After 10 min, some calves started to scratch their ears operations. Bleich et al. (1994) suggested that frequent
repeatedly. During the 10 minutes period of exposure, disturbance by aircraft could cause animals to vacate
none of the calves would lay down again (Algers, 1984). their home territory. The distance from the source of
Arnold el al. (2008) examined the effect of noise disturbance is an important indicator of alert behaviour.
on the choice behaviour of dairy heifers in a maze. The Goats displayed alert behaviour when the helicopter
percentage of heifers that chose the quiet side of maze was directly overhead and alert response decreased
was increasing as the experiment progessed. Heifers exponentially with horizontal distance from the
exposed to the noise from milking parlour show escape- helicopter. The distance moved decreased sharply when
type behaviours, consistent with a fear response. They the helicopter was further than 150 m away. Goats were
learned to avoid the noise. Pajor et al. (2000) assessed often disoriented and ran away to a distance up to 1.5 km
responses of dairy cows to various handling treatments. in response to helicopter over-flights. However, Tracey
Exposure to noise increased avoidance behaviour, as and Flem (2007) found that helicopter flights did not
indicated by increases in stopping and amount of required cause mothers to abandon their young, nor adversely
handier intervention. Broucek et al. (1988b) observed the affect their immediate or long-term welfare. Feral goats
effect of sire lineage on movement activity in dairy cows displayed aversion and learnt to respond to helicopter
tested during noise at open-field arena. disturbance (Tracey and Plena, 2007).
Noise in the milking facility has direct Horses are also very sensitive to noise. Algers
implications for on-farm efficiency related to improving (1984) wrote that after the start of noise stimul horses
cow behaviour and human-animal interactions. Faster turned their heads and directed their ears towards the
movement in response to noise persisted for the first source and then immediately turned their ears away.
4 days of the treatment phase, with some evidence of At a new tone, the horses reacted with attention for a
habituation of this response on the fifth day (Waynert very short time and then turned their ears away again.
et al., 1999). Responses to noise in commercial milking All horses showed marked attention for the whole 10-
facilities may be influenced by processes of habituation. miss experimental period. The author recorded flight
As dairy cows are regularly exposed to the milking reactions when the noise source was switched on (Algers,
environment, there is opportunity for reduction of any 1984).
fear responses arising from exposure to noise. Several reviews presented a varied response of
Dairy heifers were exposed to the noise of 85 dB horses to low-altitude aircraft overflights. Observations
during the 23 rn long transfer test raceway. Exposure noted that horses galloped in response to jet flyovers
to noise resulted in increases in heart rate and faster (Gladwin et al., 1988). Intensive flight reactions,
transit times. There were no significant effects of noise random movements, and biting/kicking behaviour were
on latency to enter the raceway, or animal handling displayed. However, no injuries or abortions occurred,
parameters (Arnold et 2007). These data indicate that and evidence suggested that the mares adapted to the
anthropogenic noise generated in the course of routine flyovers over the course of a month (Manci et al., 1988).
human activity may have adverse effects on cattle Auditory stimuli are used by pigs as a means
welfare. of conununication in all social activities (Gonyou,
The 90 dB of noise level in the short term has 2001). Pigs exposed to 90 dB prolonged or intermittent
caused in sheep a departure from the source of noise increased time lying down and decreased social.
the sound and accumulation of a cohesive group interactions (Otten et al., 2004). According to Tailing
of individuals in the lying position (Algers, 1984). et al, (1996) pigs show an aversion to sudden loud
Responses to helicopter over-flights have the potential noise during tested in an open-field. This response
to alter the time budget of behaviour activities. Bighorn was stronger for a frequency of 8 kHz than for 500 Hz
sheep responded to helicopter flights by decreasing and for an intensity of 97 dB than for 85 dB, although
their time spent foraging and they were the most habituation occurred relatively quickly (Kittawornrat
sensitive to disturbance during winter (43 % reduction and Zimmerman, 2011). Repeated exposure of pigs to
in foraging efficiency). Further analyses indicated a noise levels of 90 dB has negative implications on their
disturbance distance threshold of 250-450 m (Stockwell welfare (Kanitz etal., 2005).
118

Slovak J. Anim. Sei., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
Longer lasting sounds, for example continuous ended, and within a few minutes all activity returns to
fan noise, can also affect pigs. Behaviour of piglets and normal. This suggests that the birds habituate relatively
sows during suckling in relation to sound levels were quickly (Gladwin at al., 1988). A significant negative
investigated by Algers and Jensen (1985). Sows were effect of acute noise exposure at 80 dB and 100 dB on
exposed to a relatively silent background noise of 59 stressfulness and fearfulness in broilers was observed by
dB or exposed to fan noise at a level of 85 dB. In the Chloupek at al. (2009). Campo at al. (2005) found that
noise-exposed environment, the piglets failed to respond laying hens exposed to noise at 90 dB (truck, train and
to the gruntings of the sow, which led to a disrupted aircraft noises) for 60 minutes were more fearful than
pattern. Significantly decreased massaging of the udder control hens kept at 65 dB caused by bird vocalizations
and hence reduced milk production were recorded, and fans. Algers at al. (1978) noted characteristic
Authors concluded that the noise-exposed piglets gained reactions to long lasting sound (95 dB, 500 Hz) as
less milk than the ones in the silent environment. In startle response, latent period, running, total immobility,
the study of Algers (1984) with sudden noise exposure small jerky head movements, and sleep-like behaviour
10-day-old pigs an inunecliate attention and orientation in chickens. The reaction varied in form and strength
reaction for about 10 a was noted. The 6-week-old pigs according to the age of the experimental birds and was
were immediately activated and started to orientate strongest in about 26-day old chickens. Sudden loud
themselves towards the sound source. An intensive noises have also been reported to cause hysteria in
searching behaviour by all pigs started and continued for various strains of chickens (Mitloehner at al., 2010).
the whole 10 mm period. Attention and waving of the Book and Bradley (1990) reported higher panic and
ears were recorded initially in all sows (Algers, 1984). aggression in turkeys in response to noise stimuli
When suckling piglets were subjected to continuous simulating aircraft overflights. Wild birds have been
loud noise, they were to a lesser extent attracted to the reported to react with disrupted sitting (Algers et al.,
front teats and more frequently used the teats at the rear 1978). Bright (2008) recorded noise (background
part of the udder (Algers and Jensen, 1991). machinery and hen vocalisations) in 21 commercial free-
The intensity of 90 dB prolonged or intermittent range laying hen flocks aged 35 weeks. Ten of the flocks
noise increased time of lying down, and decreased were classified as feather pecking and 11 as non-feather
social_ interactions (Often at al., 2004). Some trials pecking. For the acoustic parameters measured, there
showed that pigs respond with an increase in ambulation were no differences between the general flock noise of
score when exposed to a short-term noise stress (Tailing feather and non-feather pecking flocks.
at al., 1996, 1998; Kanitz at al,, 2005). Tailing at al. Behaviour of adult animals in captivity is also
(1996) found that within a continual 15 min exposure affected by noise. In zoos and aquaria, noise from visitors
to noise, initial differences between treatment and pre- increases as visitor numbers increase. Loud sound has
treatment locomotion in pigs decreased over the course been shown to increase vigilance and activity and
of the trial. Habituation to noise has also been observed agitation behaviours in pandas (Morgan and Tromborg,
over repeated exposure on separate occasions. 2007).
Drastic effects have been noticed connected
with sonic bangs caused by low crossing aircraft,
mink and rabbits killing their young (Algers at al., CONCLUSION
1978). Laboratory rabbits alter their behaviour when
exposed to normal laboratory sounds in nonsound The intention of this review is to document
isolated housing (Jildge, 1991). Effect of noise on and compare the results of previous studies on noise
rabbits causes adverse effects including nervous and assessment, in particular housing situations and to
behavioural abnormalities and can cause a startled demonstrate the impact and significance of the noise
response and traumatic injuries to limbs and back (Marai problem for farm animal welfare, housing, design
and Rashwan, 2004). Particularly, most concerns about and management. Environmental and communication
noise effects have traditionally focused on impairment noises are present in animal housings. Although the
of reproductive and maternal behaviours, although a majority of the literature suggests that farming animals
few controlled studies have been done to support the and wildlife species exhibit adaptation after repeated
observations of animal caretakers that noise inhibits exposure to noise, careful planning should be made
production. With regard to the noise, threshold areas in before construction of the animal building, in order to
the sensitive range of rabbits lie between zero and 20 dB avoid stressful environmental sounds both for the animal
sound pressure, which means a sensitive hearing. and personnel.
The typical reaction of domestic fowls after
exposure to sudden, intense noise is a short-term startle
response. The reaction ceases as soon as the stimulus is
119

Review Slovak.]: Anim. Sc., 47, 2014(2): 111-123
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT KNOTKOVA, Z. — VOSLAROVA, E. —
PISTEKOVA, V. — VECEREK, V. 2010. Responses
This article was possible tluough project APVV- of peripheral blood leukocytes to chronic
0632-10 of the Slovak Research and Development intermittent noise exposure in broilers. Berliner nod
Agency Bratislava. iiiltinchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 123, Heft
5/6, 2010, p, 10-15.
BERGLUND, B. — LINDVALL, T. — SCHWELA, D. H.
REFERENCES 1999. Guidelines for community noise. The World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 159 p.
ALI3RIGHT, J. L. —ARAVE, C. W. 1997. The behcndour BEYER, D. 1983. Studies of the Effects of Low-Flying
of cattle. CAB International, 299 p. Aircraft on Endocrinological and Physiological
AGNES, F. — SARTORELLT, P. — ABUT, B. H. — Parameters in Pregnant Cows. Diss. Veterinary
LOCATELLI, A. 1990. Effect of transport loading College ofHannover,Manchen, Germany, 1983, 147p.
or noise on blood biochemical variables in calves. BLEICH, V. C. — BOWYER, R. T. — PAULI, A. M.
American Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 51, — NICHOLSON, M. C. — ANTHES, R. W. 1994.
1990, p. 1679-1681. Mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) and helicopter
ALGERS, B. — EKESBO, I. — STROMBERG, S. 1978. surveys: ramifications for the conservation of large
The impact of continuous noise on animal health. Aria mammals. Biological Conservation, vol. 70, 1994, p. 1-7.
Veterinaria Scandinavica, Suppl. 67, 1978, p. 1-26. BOND, J. 1971. Noise: its effect on the physiology and
ALGERS, B. 1984. A note on behavioural responses behavior of animals. Agricultural Science Review,
of farm animals to ultrasound. Applied Animal vol. 9, 1971 (4), p. 1-10.
Behavior Science, vol, 12, 1984, p. 387-391. BOOK, C. M. — BRADLEY, F. A. 1940. Behavioural
ALGERS, B.— JENSEN, P. 1985. Communication during effects of simulated F-4D aircraft overflights on
suckling in the domestic pig: Effects of continuous Nicholas turkey poults. Poultry Science, 69 (Suppl.),
noise. Applied Animal Behavior Science, vol. 14, 1990, 22 p.
1985, p. 49-61. BOWLES, A. E. — BOOK, C. — BRADLEY, F. 1990.
ALGERS, B. — JENSEN, P. 1991. Teat stimulation and Effects of Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights on
milk production-during early lactation in sois: Effects Domestic Turkey Poults. USAF, Wright-Patterson
of continuous noise. Canadian Journal of Animal AFB, AL/OEBN Noise Effects Branch, 1990.
Science, vol. 71, 1991, p. 51-60. BRIGHT, A. 2008. Vocalisations and acoustic parameters
AMES, D. R_. 1971. Thyroid responses to sound stress. of flock noise from feather pecking and non-feather
Journal of Animal Science, vol. 33, 1971, p. 247 . pecking laying flocks. British Poultry Science,
AMES, D. R. — AREHART, L. A. 1972. Physiological vol. 49, 2008, p. 241-249.
response of lambs to auditory stimuli. Journal of I3ROUCEK, J. — KOVALCIKOVA, M. — KOVALCIK,
Animal Science, vol. 34, 1972, p. 994-998. K. 1983. The effect of noise on the biochemical
AMES, D. R. 1978. Physiological responses to auditory characteristics of blood in dairy cows. Zivocisna
stimuli: p. 23-45. In: J. L. Fletcher and R. C. Busnel Vyroha, vol. 28, 1983, p. 261-267.
(eds.), Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Academic Press, BROUCEK, J. —KOVALCIKOVA, M. —KOVALCIK, K.
New York. 1988. Evaluation of Effect of Repeated Noise Stress
AREHART, L. A. — AMES, D. R. 1972. Performance of on Biochemical Indices of Dairy Cows. Scientific
early-weaned lambs as affected by sound type and Works of RIAP in Nitra, XXIII, 1988a, p. 85-91.
intensity. Journal of Animal Science, vol. 35, 1972, BROUCEK, J. —KOVALCIKOVA, M. —KOVALCIK, K.
p. 481-485. 1988. Effect of noise load on changes of biochemical
ARNOLD, N. A. — KIM, T. N. — JONGMAN, E. C. indicators in differently relative first-calf cows.
— HEMSWORTH, P. H. 2007. The behavioural and Polnohospodarstvo, vol. 34, 1988h, p. 647-654.
physiological responses of dairy heifers to tape- DRUMM, H. — SCHMIDT, R. — SCHRADER, L. 2009.
recorded milking facility noise with and without Noise-dependent vocal plasticity in domestic fowl.
a pre-treatment adaptation phase. Applied Animal Animal Behaviour, vol. 78, 2009, p. 741-746.
Behaviour Science, vol. 106, 2007, p. 13-25. BURN, C. C. 2008. What is it like to be a rat? Rat sensory
ARNOLD, N. A. — KIM, T. N., — JONGMAN, E. C. perception and its implications for experimental
— HEMSWORTH, P. H. 2008. Avoidance of tape- design and rat welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour
recorded milking facility noise by dairy heifers in Science, vol. 112, 2008, p. 1-32.
a Y maze choice task. Applied Animal Behaviour BURROW, A. — DAY, H. E. — CAMPEAU, S. 2005.
Science, vol. 109, 2008, p. 201-210. A detailed characterization of loud noise stress:
BEDA_NTOVA, I. — CHLOUPEK, J. — CHLOUPEK, P. — intensity analysis of hypothalamo-pituitary-
120

Slovak J. Aniin. Sc., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
adrenocortical axis and brain activation. Brain Morphology, vol. 16, 1966, p. 1-16.
Research, vol. 1062, 2005, p. 63-73. GEVERTNK, N. A. — BRADSHAW, R. H. — LAMBOOIL
CAMPO, J. L. —0Th, M. G. — DAVILA, S. G. 2005. E. — WIEGANT, V. M. — BROOM, D. M. 1998.
Effects of specific noise and music stimuli on stress Effects of simulated lairage conditions on the
and fear levels of laying hens of several breeds. physiology and behavior of pigs. Veterinary Record,
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 91, 2005, vol. 143, 1998, p. 241-244.
p. 75-84. GLADWLN, D. N. — MANCE K. M. — VILLELLA,
CASTELHANO-CARLOS, M. 1. — BAUM.ANS, V. R. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms
2009. The impact of light, noise, cage cleaning on domestic animals and wildlife: bibliographic
and in-house transport on welfare and stress abstracts. U.S. Fish Wildlife Servise National
of laboratory rats, Laboratory Animals, vol. 43, 2009, Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO, NERC-
p. 311-327. 88/32., 1988, 78 p.
CHLOUPEK, P. VOSLAkOVA, E. — CHLOUPEK, I. GONYOU, H. W. 2001. The Social Behaviour of Pigs.
BEDA_IITOVA, I. — PNTEKOVA, V. — VE2CEREK, 147-176. In: Gonyou, H. W., Keeling, L. J.: Social
V. 2009. Stress in Broiler Chickens Due to Acute Behaviour in Farm Animals. CAM Publishing, New
Noise Exposure. Ada Veterinaria - Brno, 2009, York, USA, 2001, 406 p.
vol. 78, 2009, p. 93-98. GRANDIN, T. 1997. Assessment of stress during
CLOUGH, G. 1999. The animal house: Design, handling and transport. Journal of Animal Science,
equipment and environmental control. In: The vol. 75, 1997, p. 249-257.
UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management GRANDIN, T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization
of laboratory Animals, Ed. Poole (T) 75 Edition, scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle
Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford UK, 1999, p. 97-134. slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol.
CORREA, J. A. — TORREY, S. — EVILLERS, N. — 56, 1998, p, 121-128.
LAFOREST, J. P.—GONYOU, H. W.—FAUCITANO, GROSS, W. B. 1990. Effect of exposure to a short
L. 2010. Effects of different moving devices duration sound on the stress response of chickens.
at loading on stress response and meat quality in Avian Diseases, vol. 34, 1990, p. 759-761.
pigs. Journal of Animal Science, vol. 88, 2010, GYGAX, L. —NOSAL, D. 2006. Short Communication:
p. 4086-4093. Contribution of Vibration and Noise During Milking
COTTE'REAU, P. 1978. The Effect of Sonic Boom to the Somatic Cell Count of Milk. Journal of Dairy
from Aircraft on Wildlife and Animal Husbandry. Science, vol. 89, 2006, p. 2499-2502.
In: J. L. Fletcher and R. G. Busnel (eds): Effects of HEAD, H. H. — KULL, R. C. — CAMPUS, M. S. —
Noise on Wildlife, Academic Press, New York, 1978, 13ACHMAN, K. C. —WILCOX, C. 1.— CLINE, L. L.
p. 63-79. — HAYEN, M. J. 1993. Milk yield, milk composition,
CWYNAR_, P. — KOLACZ, R. 2011. The effect of sound and behavior of Holstein cows in response to jet
emmission on sheep welfare. A'V ISAH Congress aircraft noise before milking. Journal of Daisy
2011, Proceedings of the XVtli International Congress Science, vol. 76, 1993, p, 1558-1567.
of the International Society for Animal Hygiene, HEFFNER, H. E. 1998. Auditory awareness. Applied
Vienna, Eds. Prof. Josef Miter, Dr. Hermann Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 57, 1998, p. 259-268.
Schobesberger First Edition, 2011, vol. III, HEFFNER, H. E. — HEFFNER, R. S. 1993. Auditory
p. 1059-1061. perception. In: Phillips, C.J.C. and Piggins, D.
DE LA FUENTE, J. — DIAZ, M. T. — IBANEZ, M. — (eds), Farm Animals and the Environment. CAB
DE CHAVARRI, E. G. 2007. Physiological response International, Wallingford, 1993, p. 159-184.
of rabbits to heat, cold, noise and mixing in the context HEMS WORTH, P. H. —PRICE, E. 0. — BORGWARDT,
of transport Animal Welfare, vol. 16, 2007, p. 41-47. R. 1996. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and
DUFOUR, P. A. 1980, Effects of noise on wildlife and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal
other animals: review of research since 1971. U.S. Behaviour Science, vol. 50, 1996, p. 43-56.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 550/9-80- HEMSWORTH, P. H. 2003. Human-animal interactions
100, 1980, 97 p. in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour
FOTTRFLL, P. 2009, Code of Practice for the Welfare Science, vol. 81, 2003, p. 185-198.
of Pigs. Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council, HENRY, J. P. 1992. Biological basis of the stress
Animal Health and Welfare Division, Agriculture response. 1ntergrative Physiological and Behavioral
House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, 2009, 34 p. Science, vol. 27, 1992, p. 66-83.
GREEK, W. F. 1966. Developmental effects of chronic BILLMANN, E. — MAYER, C. — SCHON, P. CH. —
maternal audiovisual stress on the rat fetus. PUPPF,, B. — SCHRADER, L. 2004. Vocalisation of
Journal of Embryology and Experimental domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) as an indicator
121

Review SlovakJ. Arnim Sc., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123
for their adaptation toward,s ambient temperatures. NERC-88/29. 1988, 88 PP.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 89, 2004, MANTEUFFEL, G. 2002. Central nervous regulation
p. 195-206. of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and
TILDGE, B. 1991. The rabbita diurnal or a nocturnal its impact on fertility, immunity, metabolism and
animal. Journal of Experimental Animal Science, animal welfare. Archiv fiir Tierzucht Dununenstorf,
vol. 34, 1991, 170-183. vol. 45, 2002, p. 575-595.
JOHNSON, P. 2006. Guidelines for the Housing of MANTEUFFEL, 0. —PUPPE, B. — SCHoN, P. C. 2004.
Guinea Pigs in Scientific Institutions. May 2006, Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare.
ARRP, Animal Welfare Branch, New South Wales Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 88, 2004,
Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, p. 163-182.
Orange NSW 2800, PO Box 100 13EECROFT NSW MARAT, I. F. M. — RASHWAN, A. A. 2004. Rabbits'
2119, 55 p. behavioural response to climatic and managerial
KANITZ, E. — OTTEN, W. — TUCHSCHERER, M. conditions: a review. Archive of Animal Breeding,
2005. Central and peripheral effects of repeated vol. 47, p. 469-482.
noise stress on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical McADIE, T. M. — FOSTER, T. M. — TEMPLE, W. —
axis in pigs, Livestock Production Science, vol. 94, MATTHEWS, L. R. 1993. A method for measuring
2005, p. 213-224. the aversiveness of sounds to domestic hens.
KAUKE, M. — SAVA_RY, P. 2010. Ldrin und Vibrationen Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 37, 1993,
im Melkstand — Auswirkungen auf das Tier. p. 223-238.
Agrarforschung Schweiz, vol. 1, 2010, 3, p. 96-101. McBRIDE, D. — FIRTH, H. — HERBISON, 0. 2003.
Kiley, M. 1972. The vocalizations of ungulates, Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss in Agriculture:
their causation and function. Zeischrifi fur A Survey of Farmers and Farm Workers in the
Tierpsychologie, vol. 31, 1972, p. 171-222. Southland Region of New Zealand. Journal of
KITTAWORNRAT, A. — ZIMMERMAN, 1. I. 2011. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 45,
Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and 12, 2003, p. 1281-1288.
pig welfare. Animal Health Research Reviews, McFARLANE, J. M. — CURTIS, S. E. 1989: Multiple
vol. 12, 2011, p. 25-32. concurrent stressors in chicks 3. Effects on plasma-
KOVALoK, K. — 'SOTTNIK, J. 1971. The effect of noise corticosterone and the heterophil-lymphocyte ratio.
on the milk efficiency of cows. Zivocisna Vyroba, Poultry Science, vol. 68, 1989, p. 522-527
vol. 16, 1971, p. 795-804. MeGLONE, J. J. — SWANSON, J. 2010 (editors). Guide
LANIER, J. L. — GRANDIN, T. — GREEN, R. D. for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in
— AVERY, D. — MCGEE, K. 2000. The relationship Research and Teaching. Federation ofAnimal Science
between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements Societies, Champaign, IL 61822, Third edition,
and sounds and temperament. Journal of Animal January 2010, 177 p. ISBN: 978-1-884706-11-0.
Science, vol. 78, 2000, p. 1467-1474. MIHINA, S. — KAZIMIROVA, V. — COPLAND, T. A.
LENDELOVA, J. — PLESNIK, J. — 2ITNAK, M. 2012. Technology for farm animal husbandry. 1"
2013. Effect of STERED using on sound isolation Issue. Nitra. Slovak Agricultural University. 2012.
of workspace. Rural buildings in european regions, 99 p. ISBN 978-80-552-0934-0.
Architectural — constructions — technology — safety. IVIITLOET-INER, F. J. — SWEARENGEN, J. —
Zbornik recenzova4ch vedeckj,ch pale na CD, JACOBSON, L. — GOOCH, C. A. — NDEGWA, P.
ISBN 978-80-552-1071-1, Nitta, 2013, p. 132-136. 2010. Husbandry, Housing, and Biosecurity, In:
MAIER, I. A. K. — MURPHY, S. M. — WHITE, R. G. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals
— SMITH, M. D. 1998. Responses of caribou to in Agricultural Research and Teaching. Chapter 3,
overflights by low-altitude jet aircraft. Journal of Third Edition, January 2010, Federation of Animal
Wildlife Management, vol. 62, 1998, p. 752-766. Science Societies, 2010, p. 14-29,
MALMKVIST, I. — JENSEN, K. H. — I-HARVARD, MORGAN, K. N. — TROMBORG, C. T. 2007. Sources
B. M. 2004. Effect of noise intensity on aggression of stress in captivity. Applied Animal Behaviour
toward intruder in group-housed slaughter pigs. Science, vol. 102, 2007, p. 262-302.
Proceedings of the 38" International Congress of the OH, T. K. — LEE, S. J. — CHANG, D. I. — CHANG,
ISAE, Helsinky, Finland, 2004, p. 245. H. H. — CHIKLSI-11, J. 2011. The Effects of Noise
/vIANCI, K. M. — GLADWIN, D. N. — VILLELLA, R. and Vibration Generated by Mechanized Equipment
— CAVENDISH, M. G. 1988, Effects of Aircraft Noise in Laying Hen Houses on Productivity. Journal
and Sonic BOOMS on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University,
A Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vol. 56 (2), 2011, p. 271-277.
National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO, OTTEN, W. — KANITZ, A. E. — PUPPF, B.
122

Slovak J. Anitn. Sci., 47, 2014 (2): 111-123 Review
- TUCHSCHERER, M. — 13ROSSOW, K. P. — — LINES, 3. A. 1996. Behavioural and physiological
NURNBERG, G. — STABENOW, B. 2004. Acute responses of pigs to sound. Applied Animal Behaviour
and long term effects of chronic intermittent noise Science, vol. 48, 1996, p. 187-202.
stress on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical TALLING, J. C. — LINES, 3. A. — WATHES, C. M. —
and sympatho-adrenomedullary axis in pigs. Animal WARAN, N. K. 1998. The acoustic environment of
Science, vol. 78, 2004, p. 271-284. the domestic pig. Journal ofAgricultural Engineering
PAJOR, E. A. RUSHEN, J. — DE PASSTLLE, A. M. B. Research, vol. 71, 1998, p. 1-12.
2000. Aversion learning techniques to evaluate dairy TRACEY, J. P. — FLEMMING, P. J. S. 2007. Flem:
cattle handling practices. Applied Animal Behaviour Behavioural responses of feral goats (Capra hircus)
Science, vol. 69, 2000, p. 89-102. to helicopters, Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
PHILLIPS, C. J. C. 2009. Housing, handling and vol. 108, 2007, p. 114-128.
the environment for cattle. Principles of cattle VENGLOVSKY, J. SASAKOVA, N. — VARGOVA,
production, 2009, p. 95-128, ISBN 978-1-84593-397-5. M.— ONDRA'S OV100VA, 0. —ONDRA_SOVIC, M.
PRIOR, H. 2006. Effects of the acoustic environment — HROMADA, R. — VUCEMILO, M. — TOFANT,
on learning in rats. Physiology & Behavior, vol. 87, A. 2007. Noise in the animal housing environment.
2006, p. 162-165. ISAH-2007 Tartu, Estonia, 2007, p. 995-999.
RABASTE, C. — FAUCTTANO, L. — SAUCIER, L. VOIPIO, H. M. 1997. How do rats react to sounds?
FOURY, D. — MORMEDE, P. — CORREA, J. A. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science,
— GIGUERE, A. —BERGERON, R, 2007. The effects vol. 24, 1997, Suppl. 1, p. 1-80.
of handling and group size on welfare of pigs in WATTS, J. M. — STOOKEY, J. M. 2000. Vocal
lairage and its influence on stomach weight, carcass behaviour in cattle: the animal's commentary on its
microbial contamination and meat quality variation, biological processes and welfare. Applied Animal
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, vol. 87, 2007, Behaviour Science, vol. 67, 2000, p. 15-33.
p.3-12. WAYNERT, D. E. — STOOKEY, J. M. —
RABIN, L. A. — MCCOWAN, B. — HOOPER, S. L. SCHWARTZKOPF-GENSWEIN, J. M. — WATTS,
— OWINGS, D. H. 2003. Anthropogenic Noise and C. S. WALTZ. C. S. 1999. Response of beef cattle
its Effect on Animal Communication: An Interface to noise during handling. Applied Animal Behaviour
Between Comparative Psychology and Conservation Science, vol. 62, 1999, p 27-42.
Biology. International Journal of Comparative WEEKS, C. A. 2008. A review of welfare in cattle,
Psychology, vol. 16, 2003, p. 172-192. sheep and pig lairages, with emphasis on stocking
SCHAFFER, D. — von BORELL, E. — LAUBE, R. B. densities, ventilation and noise. Animal Welfare,
1997. Observations on abattoir personnel on the use vol. 17, 2008, p. 275-284.
of prodding sticks on slaughter pigs in the entrance WEEKS, C. A. — BROWN, S. N. — LANE, S. —
area of the restrainer. Deutsche Tierarztliche HEASMAN, L. — BENSON, T. — WARRISS, P. D.
Wochenschrift, vol. 104, 1997, p. 487-489. 2009. Noise levels in lairages for cattle, sheep and
SCHAFFER, D. — MARQLTARDT, V.— MARX, G. pigs in abattoirs in England and Wales. Veterinary
— BORELL, E. 2011. Noise in animal housing. Record, vol. 165, 2009, p. 308-314.
A review with emphasis on pig housing. Deutsche WEISENBERGER, M. E. — KRAUSMAN, P. R.
Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, vol. 108, 2001, p. 60-66. — WALLACE, M. C. — DEYOUING, D. D. —
STOCKWELL, C. A. — BATEMAN, G. A. — BERGER, MAUGHAN, 0. E. 1996. The effects of simulated
J. 1991. Conflicts in national parks: A case study low-level aircraft noise on heart rate and behavior of
of helicopters in bighorn sheep time budgets at the desert ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management,
Grand Canyon. Biological Conservation, vol. 56, vol. 60, 1996, p. 52-61.
1991, p. 317-328. 211(16, D. — LLSCEBRKA, G. — GLEDIC, D. —
SIS TKOVA, M. — PETERICA, A. 2009. The exposure of LAZAREVIC, M. — STOJANOVIC, S. —KANAC"KI,
working environment noise in the agricultural service Z. 2011. The influence of long tern sound stress on
workplaces. Research of Agricultural Engineering, histological structure of broiler's adrenal glands.
vol. 55, 2, 2009, p. 69-75. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, vol. 27 (4),
'SISTKOVA, M. —PETERKA, A. —PETERKA, B. 2010. 2011, p. 1613-1619.
Light and noise conditions of buildings for breeding 2m:TAK, LENDELOVA, BURES", E. 2011.
dairy cows. Research of Agricultural Engineering, Working environment of dairymen in summer
vol. 56, 2010, p. 92-98. time. Rural buildings in European regions,
MSTKOV A, M. 2011. Noise caused by the poultry Architectural — constructions — technology — safety.
breeding. Agritech Science, 1, 2011, p. 1-7. Zbornik recenzovaiVch vedeckjch praz na CD,
TALL1NG, J. C. — WARAN, N. K. — WATI4ES, C, M. ISBN 978-80-552-0644-8, Nitra, 2011, p. 165-172.
123

elopment Department, or the Flood Control District of Maricopq
may be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Mill
y Permit as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Orclince.
h. The property o /s and their successors waive claim fe •
value if the County t
with conditions.
The granting of this change in ty has been at the request
of the applicant, with the conse ndowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjo es in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of pli ion, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply any co 'tion, the property shall revert
to the zoning that existed the date of ication. It is, therefore,
stipulated and agreed 1 either revocation du o the failure to comply
with any conditions, s not reduce any rights tha isted on the date of
application to use ide, sell or possess the property a that there would
be no diminutio value of the property from the value Id on the date
of applicati due to such revocation of the Military Comp ility Permit.
The Milita ompatibility Permit enhances the value of the prop above
its val as of the date the Military Compatibility Permit is gran and
rev ing to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property
e Military Compatibility Permit had never been granted.
REGULAR AGENDA
Special Use Permit - Z2017101 District 3
Applicant: Lydia Peirce Linsmeier, Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado &
Bolen
Location: Generally located approximately 600' north of the northeast
corner of 441h St. and Pinnacle Vista Dr. in the Cave Creek
area
Request: Major Amendment to a Special Use Permit (SUP) 72015024 for
a Cottage Industry - Corral Kraft, LLC
Mr. Banker presented 72017101 and noted there is an open violation for the noise
associated with the business. The applicant applied for an amendment to add the
cutting of steel component to the Special Use Permit (SUP). At the time of writing the staff
report there have been six support documents received and one opposition document.
The opposition document stated issues with noise being generated, livestock injuries,
responses from the sheriff's department and land use not being appropriate for the rural
area. The support received noted insignificant amounts of noise, they are great
neighbors and no livestock disturbance. Also, staff received additional opposition
documents this morning, and will include with any further reports to the Commission and
Board of Supervisors. There is support from some of the surrounding neighbors including
those immediately to the north and south, and the shop near the southern property line.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 15 of 24

Stuff recommends changes to condition 'k' which will clearly identify the 55 decibel
threshold of sound measured from property lines.
Chairman Arnett asked if the original SUP is a couple of years old. Mr. Banker said yes,
the original SUP is 72015024 a 2015 case.
Chairman Arnett asked if the original SUP was in violation or did the applicant come
forward of that point. Mr. Banker said it was applicant driven.
Ms. Lydia Peirce Linsmeier representing Corral Kraft noted they have been part of the
neighborhood for 14 years and it is a family business founded by Mark Tiensvold. When
Mr. Tiensvold passed away it was taken over by his son Tyler Tiensvold to support his family
and his mother. Arizona is a livestock state and Maricopa County is at the forefront of
that industry. The neighborhood is very special and has top performance horses of all
types - show Arabians, dressage, jumping and roping. People come from all over the
country to this county island to participate in equine activities including dynamite roping
which has been there for 60 years. It is a busy area with so many equine facilities, and it's
a fairly noisy area with construction, people coming for riding lessons and if is not a
completely quiet area. Corral Kraft is an important part of that infrastructure, because if
there is an emergency at your equine facility they are right there and they will come out
and help. The Tiensvold's run an equine business and it's completely appropriate for them
to be there. When the Tiensvold's originally got the Special Use Permit they did hire
someone to draft that for them, but there was a significant drafting error. The original
posting does reference cutting, and from Corral Kraft's point of view they thought the
cutting was the prep work. Once a month a truck comes in and drops off a load of pipe,
the pipe then has to be cut down to take to the client's construction site. Cutting pipe is
part of the business model and there was a mistake made, and that is why Corral Kraft is
trying to rectify the error with an amendment to the SUP. They are cutting pipe to length
for transport to customer construction sites, all the cutting in the future will be done in a
sound proof structure. The amount of pipe cutting happening on the property is about
18.25 minutes, and that will be taking place in a sound proof structure moving forward.
The cutting saw they are using can be pick up at Home Depot for $450, they have a
couple of them to put in the trucks to cut pipe at the site. It is not industrial, it is something
you can set up in your garage. A map was provided to show the support and opposition
within 300 feet, and those in support said the noise is minimal and there is no harm to
livestock and there are no issues. The individual that is complaining and started the
process is marked in red within 300 feet. There is another individual in opposition to the
amendment but they are out at 600 feet and are not even located near the Corral Kraft
property, and the others live out there and they are not directly affected by the noise.
There is a horse, Manny, that has been boarded directly south of Corral Kraft, and he
stays with Robyn Overstreet. Manny was retired because he had a severe seizure
disorder, so if he heard a loud noise he would go into a grand mal seizure. If there could
be any chance that the noise from Corral Kraft could kill him, he would have never been
kept there.
Vice Chairperson Ruby asked if the pipe cutting activity has been continuously going on
since the original SUP. Ms. Linsmeier said yes.
Planning and ZonIng Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 16 of 24

Ms. Robyn Overstreet said she and her mother own the two properties directly south of
the Tiensvolds and are 91 feet and 180 feet away from the workshop which only contains
a small area of the property. Ms. Overstreet said she takes care of special needs horses
that require care after surgery or major injuries, plus she works for the hospitals and
veterinarians and does a lot of work for them. She loves her neighborhood and has lived
there since 1990. There is no advert noise going on, we have trucks and trailers coming
in, lots of traffic, fire department a half mile away - its just everyday noise, and we live
and work with this environment. What the Tiensvold's are doing is so minimal, the majority
of the day they are at the worksites building at other people's houses. They are great
neighbors and have helped everybody. She is totally for them being there, they support
the community, and they keep us safe and keep us going.
Dr. William Barron has been on and around the properly for the past 10 years
volunteering. He hardly ever knows they are working there and the noise is minimal. When
he heard about the complaint he did a sound test with his smartphone while they were
doing work, and it came up to the conversational level. He does not see anything in the
neighborhood that disturbs the livelihood of the animals in the area, and he is in favor of
granting this addition to his petition.
Chairman Arnett asked if he lives there and if he treats the animals. Dr. Barron said no,
he does not treat the animals, he is a chiropractic physician and only volunteers on the
property.
Dr. Anne Smith said she's been a practicing veterinarian for 42 years, and has lived on
her property for 22 years. The Corral Kraft business has been there a long time and they
never bothered her until a year and a half ago they started sawing steel. The noise sounds
like a dental drill up your nose. Her property is the one most affected, since her house is
mostly square center to where they operate and the sound travels south and west, so
she gets all the noise. She has had serious injuries with her horses and she has been
injured. There is residual disruption, disorientation in the horses so they are dangerous to
handle. She is 70 years old, and three years ago she got very sick and lost her sight and
she is now property bound and is subject to this noise. They generally don't work eight
hours a day, but they work four to six hours a day quite frequently, and the noise is
continuous and enduring. The horses hear everything and every time there is a noise
there's an adrenal outpouring, and it just doesn't go away. The horses get disoriented
and dangerous to handle, there is liability here. The people that are denying it are mostly
friends of his. She works with debilitated horses, one is physically damaged and mentally
damaged and it takes longer than usual because she has to offset the noise damage to
the horses in order to proceed. The sound proof building is only part of it, they drop
bundles of poles and it is seriously dangerous when trying to ride the horses. There's going
to be accidents. There is liability here and a dangerous precedent, it's going to really
disintegrate the integrity of this horse community with this sort of degree of manufacturing
industry in the context of a residential horse community. Her work requires peace and
quiet, and since she can't drive she is there and does meditative work and spiritual work,
and the noise has tortured her for the past year and a half. It's taken this long to get
them to a hearing, the sheriff's office has been out 10 to 12 times, and the County has
been called 30 or 40 times to come out. They are in violation of their original SUP, and
they continue to drop the poles, and the activity of their enterprise is counterproductive
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 17 of 24

to anything she does. They have options and she does not. They can do the pole cuffing
on their manufacturing sites where they are constructing horse buildings, or they can go
to an industrial park where these noises are customary. The probability of the previously
non-permitted building that they slapped sound proofing into to contain the activity and
negative energies is not large. They are in violation with their pole dropping, and when
the police come out they flash their SUP and they back off.
Chairman Arnett asked where her property is again. You said the noise travels south west
but are you to the north or to the south? Dr. Smith said sorry, she is to the north and the
noise travels north.
Chairman Arnett asked so your main concern is with the noise, but there is probably other
things going on with delivery trucks, horns honking and those type of things. Have you
done anything that shows the difference between a 55 decibel level that is being
proposed, verses other things going on in that area? Dr. Smith said it is a whole different
quality of noise, the trucks and traffic are part of it. The noise is piercing, high pitched and
its loud.
Chairman Arnett asked if it's the sound level or the kind of sound. Dr. Smith said it's
piercing, it's high pitched and loud. Chairman Arnett asked so it's not the volume of the
sound with the decibel level, it is the kind of sound that concerns you. Dr. Smith said it s
the decibel level also. Chairman Arnett noted they are going to put a cap on that.
Commissioner Lindblom said as we consider these things we obviously look at the
property rights for you and others. In this case the noise, and it was said there was injury,
and you provided some information on noise and its effect on animal behavior. It makes
reference that chronic exposure to noise levels above 55 dB dramatically causes risk of
heart disease and stroke and other issues. If we approve today a noise restriction and if
there are no greater than 55 decibels at the property line that seems to be consistent
with your literature you provided to meet your needs in reducing that. ls this something
you would be pleased with? Dr. Smith said it is the pole dropping, and the ancillary noises
are as bad as the sawing.
Mr. Gerard said there is an existing Special Use Permit entitlement that includes the
assembly of the poles. What is proposed today is to add a component to the existing
business which would be cutting of steel pipe with power tools. There's nothing currently
that would prevent cutting pipe without power tools and there is nothing that prevents
stacking, assembly and moving of the metal pipes. We added the 55 decibel noise level
because we consider that lower than the background ambient noise level that we
generally use. After the building is finaled, staff intends to do a site visit where they
proceed with the cuffing, and they will measure the sound outside the property line.
Ms. Donna Ferraro said she has been a realtor for 15 years and she lives and has sold
property in this community. She lives on Pinnacle Vista which is a couple of blocks from
the subject property, and sees a problem in this setting a precedent for the zoning. Once
you allow an industrial business with cutting pipes and welding, and if anybody else
should come along and find out that this allowed in our community, who knows what
else will come. There are 85 parcels in this community with acreage and they are
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 18 of 24

surrounded by developers frying to break through their community and they have kept
it intact. It is a strong community and it is peaceful for the most part, and sometimes get
a tractor or mower, but that is a different type of noise which is expected on farming
areas and rural communities. It sets a precedent for the zoning in the community, and
once you do this it will be allowed to happen again and again. They're going to sound
proof the building and maybe this will stop the noise, but the integrity of a residential
community is being jeopardized.
Ms. Valerie Crail said she built her house 30 years ago on the corner of 44th Street and
Pinnacle Vista. She is a horse person and has been around them all her life, and horses
ore extremely sensitive to noise. In the Arabian world, the dressage world, and the roping
communities they are allowed to have ear plugs in their horse's ears so they are not
affected when they show or compete. She has lived in the community for 30 years and
they have protected it very closely. There is not a school there, nor a development that
was going to happen. We get together as a horse community, with over 500 horses in this
one half square mile and there are no through streets, it's a cul- -de-sac community.
Everybody that has horses rides south of Pinnacle Vista and this community allows horses
to be ridden within the community. The liability that Ms. Smith was talking about,
everyone knows riding horses can be dangerous, and there is a risk that people have
riding their own horses and are knowledgeable about. If you allow this industry in our
residential community, people come and ride horses and don't know who is riding what
horse by that business in any particular time. If something happens and someone gets
hurt where is the liability? There is a boarding facility on either side of this property, are
they going to have them sign a release of liability by identifying the risk. The farrier's
hammer sounds are nothing like or compared to the grinding of steel. The dump trucks
are heard a long ways away, and are prepared a long ways away to ride the other way
to minimize risk with the horse. Precedence to industry and not opposed to industry, but
not in our residential horse community.
Chairman Arnett asked if there are different guidelines and tolerances just outside of this
county island. Ms. Crctil said absolutely, we have Phoenix to the south and Phoenix to
the east at 46th Street. Chairman Arnett asked if those properties closest to that would
be at greater risk. Ms. Crail said yes, people from Phoenix do not ride their horses over
but they walk their dogs.
Chairman Arnett noted the SUP is allowed, and that's not what we are talking about
today. The SUP was decided two years ago, and Corral Kraft has another eight years left
and there is nothing they con do about that today. This is to allow power fools to do the
same business and how to mitigate whatever additions that causes. As far as precedent,
anyone that wants to go outside of current planning in the County has to come through
this Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and it's called a Special Use Permit and it
needs to be approved. There is no precedent at all, every case is special. Ms. Crail
asked if the issues were put forth at that point. Chairman Arnett said it's a different
discussion, different day, but not of the purview of what we're doing here today. He
appreciates their concern and the Commission cannot change the actions of the Board
of Supervisors. They can talk about the business that is legally permissible and to operate
as a business that they are allowed to do legally. This is all part of the SUP, and now they
want to use power tools.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 19 of 24

Ms. Fay Cardinale said she was a beginning rider and would take lessons for a year from
Ms. Smith. When you talk about the use of power tools, it is the noise and the decibels
don't really matter. One day she was getting ready to ride her horse and they started
up with the power tools, the noise spooked her and the horse and she was knocked
down. She now won't go back for lessons and that impacts Ms. Smith's livelihood. She
won't ride a horse as a newbie with the possibility of noise starting up at any time. The
horses are pretty big and it can become pretty dangerous. She understands Corral Kraft
is just trying to make a living, but it's that type of manufacturing in this horse community.
Commissioner Lindblom asked if Ms. Smith runs a business there. Ms. Smith said it is her
friend and she was out riding.
Commissioner Lindblom noted one of the stipulations of the Special Use Permit mentions
that all improvements will be removed, and asked how the owners feel about that. Ms.
Linsmeier said they enclosed a pre-existing structure, and assumes the sound proofing
would have to be removed at the end of the SUP under the terms of the permit.
Commissioner Lindblom noted he is uncomfortable with this stipulation, why would you
have to remove something that is inside of a building. Ms. Linsmeier stated Corral Kraft
has done everything in their power from day one to cooperate with Maricopa County,
and if the County wants Corral Kraft to do something they have done it. If they want the
building removed at the end of the SUP, Corral Kraft would remove the building.
Mr. Gerard said this is a standard stipulation with a lot of Special Use Permits with a more
intense scope, this is an agricultural/residential type building where people have shops
and garages. We would be happy to delete the final sentence in stipulation 'e'.
Commissioner Lindblom noted he gets very conscience with costs that we put on
property owners as we try to balance the rights of property owners. Ms. Linsmeier said
thank you, she appreciates it very much and Corral Kraft does as well.
Ms. Linsmeier noted the word industrial keeps being tossed around, and there is nothing
industrial about cutting pipe with a power saw that you buy at Home Depot and operate
for 20 minutes a week. That's not industrial.
Commissioner Andersen asked what is the legal standard that has to be satisfied here, is
the question really whether cutting metal in a sound proof structure has a negative
impact on surrounding properties, and is that the issue. Mr. Swan said it's what type of
cottage industry has been permitted and whether it falls within those parameters.
Mr. Gerard said it's a land use question more than legal parameters. You have to decide
whether it is an appropriate land use decision with this cottage industry in this
neighborhood.
Ms. Linsmeier said if she goes back a little further, it would be a better understanding as
to why they are here today. Originally one of the neighbors was calling Maricopa
County 30 to 40 times, and multiple calls to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
about the noise. We kept going back to the County asking what do they want and need,
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 20 of 24

and they ended up in a position where Planning and Zoning went out to the property to
come up with some type of solution, because the calls kept coming in. We were told it
was a political issue and something had to be done. The compromise we made is to try
and address the neighbor concerns, so that is where they are now. The concern at the
time was the cutting was outside of the original terms of the SUP. It was contemplated
but it wasn't technically listed in the conditions. When we went to the hearing and spoke
with the County Attorney and they were told cutting isn't technically listed, so this is the
solution.
Commissioner Andersen asked if it was not listed in the conditions but it was part of the
neighborhood notification. Ms. Linsmeier said yes, absolutely. The preparation was in the
little introductory section at the top before the conditions and it was Corral Kraft's intent
to have cutting, because otherwise the business model doesn't work, you have to cut
down the lengths of pipe. They didn't understand that they wouldn't be allowed to cut
pipe for 20 minutes a week to get it out to the building sites. There is no welding and no
grinding on the Corral Kraft property.
Commissioner Andersen said so the issue is whether cutting of metal with power tools in
a sound proof building is consistent with a cottage industry in the County. Mr. Gerard
said yes, that is what is before you today.
Mr. Gerard noted as of the last two years, the state legislature has greatly expanded the
opportunity for home-based businesses in the unincorporated areas in the counties. The
home-based business is not relegated to offices, they are allowed outdoor storage, and
outdoor activities. The County ordinance was updated to allow by-right in rural or single
family residential zoning home-based businesses that have no greater than three non-
resident employees, meaning everybody that lives there can work there. They can also
employ three people to work there, and they can have up to five clients or customers on
site at any given time. They can also have 25 percent of the property devoted to outdoor
storage or outdoor activities, other than the use of power tools which must be in
completely enclosed buildings. That is what's before you today. It is a much looser
standard today by statute when Corral Kraft's SUP was first approved. The current
operation today would be without a SUP, but for the fact that they don't have screening,
a solid wall or fence for their pipe they are storing which would trigger the special use. In
addition, they want to have power tools, so the power tools would be in an enclosed
building with sound continuation measures if necessary to bring the decibel level down
no greater than 55. They have an existing Special Use Permit that allows there business,
but the only question is if they can have mechanized cutting of pipe.
Commissioner Hiatt asked would the change in statute stay at the state level two years
ago allows for power tools in enclosed buildings? Mr. Gerard said the state statute is very
wide open, our ordinance is more specific than the state statute which is very broad and
allows a great deal of home-based businesses.
Commissioner Hiatt asked if whether it specifically allows power tools in enclosed
buildings. Mr. Gerard said the ordinance would require it to be in an enclosed building.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 21 of 24

Commissioner Hiatt asked if there is any sound restriction in the state statute. Mr. Gerard
said not that he is aware of; it's a subjective issue based upon nuisance law and the
responding officers.
Mr. Gerard said in the ordinance it is fora permitted by-right home-based business, "there
may be no mechanical equipment or power tools used except for normal household
purposes, if the noise would be considered to have an adverse impact on the
surrounding residential neighborhood per the Maricopa County noise ordinance." This is
going to be a subjective response, based upon the responding officer considers to be
normal.
Commissioner Hiatt asked if the business would be allowed without any type of SUP if the
power tools were inside an enclosed building and not a nuisance, and if it were screened,
then no SUP would be required. Mr. Gerard said correct.
Commissioner Cowley noted this business has been operating for 14 years, and asked
how did they operate previous to the SUP? Mr. Gerard said he believes they moved to
this site within the past few years.
Commissioner Lindblom noted it sounds like there's been a complaint from a neighbor
which has initiated a significant amount of expense to a business owner that is not
necessary. The issues of noise and concerns of horses can be resolved by some of the
things we talked about today. Some of the conditions that have been applied on top
of that seem overreaching, like non-compliance with any Maricopa County stipulation
shall be grounds for revocation of this Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Lindblom said he grew up on Rural-43 for 30 years, and his family ran a
business out of their house until neighbors came and the business grew to a level where
they were a bad neighbor and they moved. Part of that included cutting a lot of metal,
they ran an iron shop and they had horses on that property and had 15 cattle. You want
to be good neighbors, you have to live by each other and should be friends with each
other. We have to try and work through issues together and our role today is to make sure
we are requiring property owners within reasonable grounds to try and mediate this in
some way. The primary purpose of Rural-43 zoning district is to conserve and protect
farms and other open land uses, foster orderly growth in rural and agricultural areas,
prevent urban and agricultural land use conflicts, and encourage sustainable
development. Why did they even need an SUP, they are within what was allowable and
does believe Corral Kraft has done what they've been asked. Hoping we are mindful of
what we are asking for, and want clear language where we don't have them back here
again. The biggest concern was the sound requirement but that has been addressed, its
a measurable 55 decibel that was proposed and it is something you can be comfortable
with and it is something we can be comfortable with.
Chairman Arnett said his concerns are that today they wouldn't even need the SUP, but
we would probably still be talking about the power tools and the noise. Mr. Gerard said
today they need a Special Use Permit for the lack of screening.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 22 of 24

Chairman Arnett said he is not a noise expert, but their job today is to make sure they are
not contributing to what is around them and whatever noise is emitted from there.
Vice Chairperson Ruby said she appreciates if staff would amend the condition to make
it a measurable standard because the vagueness of sound proof would have been
problematic.
Commissioner Lindblom noted that there are many things Corral Kraft has agreed to that
is not required by law. They are trying to be good neighbors.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Cowley motioned to approve Z2017101 subject to
conditions 'a' -- le with changes to conditions `e' and 'k'. Vice Chairperson Ruby second.
Approved 7-0.
a. Development of the site shall comply with the approved substantial
conformance 72015024 Site Plan entitled "Tiensvold Special Use Permit",
consisting of one (1) full-size sheet, dated stamped approved on
December 7, 2015 except as modified by the following conditions. The
applicant must provide an updated site plan within 30 days of Board of
Supervisors approval to label the enclosed 800 sq. ft. shop and update the
engineering seal per the Engineering comments.
b. Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled, "Amendment to SUP 72015024", consisting of 3 pages, stamped
received October 9, 2017 except as modified by the following conditions.
c. Amendments to the site plan and narrative report shall be processed as a
revised application in accordance with Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance Article 304.9.
d. The applicant/property owner shall submit a 'will serve' letter from Rural
Metro for fire protection services for the site.
e. This Special Use Permit shall expire 10 years from the date of approval by
the Board of Supervisors with case 72015024 (October 21, 2025) for a period
of 90 or more consecutive days, or upon termination of the use, whichever
occurs first.
f. The applicant/owner shall submit a written report outlining the status of the
development at the end of 5 years from the date of approval of case
72015024 by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by
staff to determine whether the Special Use Permit remains in compliance
with the approved conditions.
g. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopo
County Zoning Ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 23 of 24

h. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the time of
expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert to the zoning
that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and
agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any
conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any
rights that existed on the dote of application to use, divide, sell or possess
the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property
from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or
expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the
value of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit
is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the
property as if the Special Use Permit had never been granted.
The requirement for the solid screen wall is waived with this Cottage Industry
approval.
The following Engineering conditions shall apply:
1. The engineered grading and drainage plans submitted have an
expired seal. Resubmittal of the engineer's plans needs to be with
their updated signature, date signed, and registration expiration
date.
2. The site is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Zone AO -
Shallow Flooding (1' depth)). A Floodplain Use Permit will be required
for any development on the site including storage of materials.
k. All cutting of steel material shall be done within a completely enclosed
sound proof building, and with sound attenuation measures as may be
necessary so that noise emanatinci from steel cuffing on the site does not
exceed 55 dB as measured outside any property line.
Chairman Arnett adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
Prepared by Rosalie Pinney
Recording Secretary / Administrative Assistant
November 30, 2017
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of November 30, 2017
Page 24 of 24

In reference to the Corral Kraft special use permit application numberZ2017101 I will be unable
to attend the hearing scheduled. However I want to make known that I object to the awarding of
the requested special use permit which would allow industrial activity in the midst of a
residential/Horse community. The noise will not be tolerable and the effect on property values
will be devastating.
Name. Address. Phone. Email
41 Le rile
-1--utLefbr4/
fAV1 3,lb"-
Fa_ics,d0.0,61,co,
41A)LL211)9°2 E Dalt LA)
7 0/-4 _Sp Arl ikUP*
7 /7-7et/Z
6 CO q•-q 118-D5 g .5' OV--- dcsfel otA) [) -2517
t-itt '),\,646Q1,04y-e,g
-50-5s<-0R,3
RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2017

In reference to the Corral Kraft special use permit application numberZ2017101, I will be
unable to attend the hearing scheduled. However, I want to make known that I object to
the awarding of the requested special use permit which would allow industrial activity in
the midst of a residential/Horse community. The noise will not be tolerable and the
effect on property values will be devastating.
Name: Marsha Miller
Address: 4305 E. Quail Track Dr, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Phone: 602-697-9566
Email: marsha.miller73@gmaii.com
RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2011

IMG_4362.JPG Page 1 of 1
• .1. 1.0eiracc :!4.-i er-4 KrOt Lr-
0.44.4t.gririt.,..1K4,44 0/J0 60...j-F'4'''. 1••• .:
11.401k11.0,0.&.1 i;70. 9
. . ,q11.0:1,!;i1.>:.: . ....... . 111; . 1:14,1.i.i.=.4tir4
4,Er
t . .
RECEIVED .NOV 3 0 2011
https://mail.google.com/ /scs/mail-statie/ /js/k=gmail.main.en.CS8'7NgUoRx4.0/m=pds,... 11/30/2017

In reference to the Corral Kraft special use peimit application numberZ2017101 I will be unable
to attend the hearing scheduled. However I want to make known that I object to the awardin g of
the requested special use permit which would allow industrial activity in the midst of a
residentiaVHorse community The noise will not be tolerable and the effect on property values
will be devastating.
Name. Address. Phone. Email
r tA-ve-tri- hia-6-1- .2-792-4-• ify 41..0,67- i I Sro s-8,5_xvi
-
9',1------ ------: , /e-4,-/
‘ty 1 i 5J, f -64.91,5rtbucir2}14 6,0D 7-f• 9i i6-•• •
7 _.:- t.,?-
(i'M_/2,1,
RECEIVED NOV 3 0 MI

Planning & Development
Department
DATE: January 17, 2018
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Darren Gerard, AICP, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Z2017101 - Corral Kraft LLC.
Agenda Item: PZ-2
Attached is an email received by staff that explains withdrawal of one of the previously
submitted opposition documents to the subject case, this email was left out of the BOS
short report in error. Also, included is a letter provided by the applicant from the adjacent
neighbor to the east of the subject site. This letter provides support for their neighbor's
business and mentioned no negative impacts from the Corral Kraft operation.
Lastly, staff received 3 PowerPoint slides from the opposition (Ms. Anne Smith) to this case,
they have been included as attachments.
Attachments: Withdrawn Opposition email (1 page)
Support Letter (2 pages)
Opposition PowerPoint slides (3 pages)
502 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 . Phoenix, AZ 85008 . (602) 506-3707. (602) 506-3711 fax
>internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning

Raymond Banker - PLANDEVX
From: Beth Boltz Morton <sweetcedarsprings@yahoo.com >
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 8:59 AM
To: Raymond Banker - PLAN DEVX
Subject: Corral Kraft number Z2017101
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir...
In November a letter circulated our neighborhood, protesting the Corral Kraft construction
business. In response to that letter, my husband, my daughter, my son-in-law and I signed a petition
objecting to the special use permit revision.,
We are writing to rescind our signatures. We have come to realize the letter was a completely
overblown attempt, included erroneous information, and frankly we are embarrassed that we did not
investigate further before adding our signatures.
We have known and done business with Corral Kraft several times over the course of 15 years, and
think highly of their service and products. They have been honest, fair, and very helpful. They are an
assest to our neighborhood.
We have spoken to Tyler, as well as his attorney, and apologized for our error in judgement, again,
due to a ridiculously overstated and inflammatory letter that was circulated in our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. We need businesses like Corral Kraft in this
equine economy.
Leon Morton
Beth Boltz-Morton
Tobey Polynin
Robert Polynin
27427 N 42nd Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
My phone is 785 210 5094 thank you Beth Morton
1

Jay and Christy Nance
4514 E Pinnacle Vista Dr
Cave Creek, Az 85331
To Whom it May Concern:
This is a letter of support for the upcoming
decision for Tyler and Cecilia Tiensvold's
usage of their property that adjoins our
property, directly to the east of them. We
are aware that there is a business that could
possibly at times produce noise, related to
building of steel corrals etc. Having lived next
to them for 20+ years, we understand that
entails cutting of steel and normal noise
associated with this type of business. We
have talked to Tyler and have seen the huge
improvements he has made with concerns
some neighbors have over noise, including an
enclosed insulated area for cutting. He has
?4-6-11c •
RECENEO JAN 1 6 201

been extremely accommodating to any issues
that he may be causing. We personally have
not been negatively affected by having his
business next to us. We mostly work from
home, and support our neighbors who choose
to run their business from home. We own
horses, dogs, cats and none seem to be
adversely affected by the "noise" produced
from Corral Kraft.
Jay and Christy Nance

ft. shed. in very but plans. be Ms. display utility will as
non-resident sq. in not provided acre, between will to to that criteria requirements
800 proposed, office when occur 0.41 in to 16
in to parking than included provided area. lighting granted disruptions activity all
Compliance dwelling. one occur signage in be garage less No be system no meet additional approval.
in only will No will in visitation Adequate is screening driveway business to materials. create be to approval. to
lives is shed. parked area and only not will nuisances. agrees. willing open for
Owner There Business applicable. Business Client properly. Storage wall Paved applicable. SUP Racking will There Owner Owner for is conditions
employee. detached Vehicles infrequently. block Street installed. Tiensvold. piping/tubing SUP services. generate condition Owner
Yes. Yes. Yes. Not Yes. use. Yes. on No. no Yes. 44v, Not Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. as
on 3 in total and in permit these of
dwelling exceed business Vehicles of utilities etc. vote, consist
Criterion to for 25% business. downward racks. with odors, industry from unanimous
UP in not area building; exceed screening, on waiver may
reside floor parking to to directed interfere smoke, cottage by
industry shall employees 50% permitted. enclosed not for wall access displayed not obtain Inspector. no except reauirernents.
Cottage than sign in area. off-street storage block paved lighting non-transferable. be to shall vibration, be
Entrepreneur Non-resident more one area; noise, shall Zoning shall requirements Recommendation
property Only Business enclosed Adequate Outdoor Provide Outdoor shielded. SUP Products Business area No Owner from There additional
No lot
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16

Kraft
Corral
to
Proximity

Injuries
Related
Noise
eye
on tissue
spot
scar
White is

Maricopa County Regional Development Services GIS
klaricepa County
Regional Development Services
GIS Diiiision
=County Boundary
esaI Interstates
212-12-3125 V ' = State Highway
212-12-n ti US Highway
- Major Roads
re,ff rp, Residential Streets
/ 300' Buffet
A Opposition Parcels
I :
Supporting Parcels
II= 1 Subject Parcel
re [ 301:1 Buffer Interior
I I 3131:1' Buffer Selection
212-15-0235 Excluded Peiceb
A
rof '''d Fey
212 12-012C 212- 1 12 2
:an 15.2015 IC 3 - E•3 Ai
Opposition Case Summary
* Note: All Area calculations represent the area of the parcel inside the 300' Buffer
Eligible parcels - excluding subject parcel: 15
Supporting parcels: 7
Opposition parcels: 1
Supporting parcels sq ft: 374,050.55
Opposition parcels sq ft: 32,508.73
Subject parcel -sq ft: 106,616.18
All area inside the 300' buffer: 865,840.97
All area inside the 300' buffer - excluding subject parcel. ROW and excluded parcels: 698,135.91
No-response parcels sq ft: 291,575.64
Super Majority opposed parcel acres: 4.66%
Super Majority opposed parcel number: 6.67%
No Response Parcels Supporting-Parcels Oppdtition Parcels
APN 1 Area SqFt 1 Area Acres APN I Area SqFt Ares Acres 1 APN 1 Area SqFt Area Acres
212-12-012D 21,911.8251 0.503 • 212-18-01213 16,892.1751 0.3878 212-18-0210 32,508.7253 10.7463
212-18-01013 67,980.4657 1.5606 212-18-0210 32,254.9762 0.7405
212-18-010D 46,613.2434 1.0701 212-19-0230 44,275.9937 1.0164
212-18-0218 31,983.601 0.7342 212-12-0130 96,838.4934 2.2231
212-18-02313 49,264.7547 1.131 1212-18-02213 90,455.51 2.0766
212-12-012C 44,490.7333 1.0211 1-21218-023D 49,175.6975 1. 1.120
212-12-013H I 29,342.0147 0.6736 212-18-023E 144,157.8193 I 1.0137