|
Residents push debate on livestock in neighborhoods
Looking for a little horse sense
BY CHARLES GARRATT • STAFF WRITER
 | | Ann Layman boarded her horses with these horses on Homestead property when she and her husband were Owners Club property owners. After purchasing property in Mitchelltown and selling their Owners Club unit, Layman planned to board her horses on their 13 acres only to discover a zoning change no longer allowed horses in residential districts regardless of lot size. Bath supervisor will hold a public hearing Sept. 11 to consider removing a provision in the new comprehensive plan that might have allowed a change to the zoning laws to allow livestock on large residential lots. (Recorder photo by Charles Garratt) |
|
WARM SPRINGS - The Bath County board of supervisors scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday Sept. 11 to discuss removing a controversial statement from the new comprehensive plan that could allow horses and other livestock in residential districts.
Prior to a change in the land use regulations in November 2004, horses were allowed by conditional use in districts zoned residential. Supervisor Stuart Hall, who made the motion last Tuesday to set the public hearing, said this week the change was made in 2004 because of complaints about horses and donkeys roaming loose.
"We spent millions of dollars putting water and sewer in residential districts," Hall said. "The people who live there deserve that protection (from livestock)," he added. "Big farm animals belong in agricultural districts."
Allen and Ann Layman purchased 13 acres in the Mitchelltown area in early 2002. At the time they purchased the property they were assured, Ann Layman said, horses would be allowed on the property. They were unaware of the zoning change in 2004 when they built a barn and then discovered horses would not be permitted on the property.
Ann Layman spoke during the public hearing on the new comprehensive plan last month. Supervisors had removed the last part of a paragraph from the plan during previous sessions. At the urging of Layman and others, the paragraph was restored to the plan as adopted.
The paragraph in question states: "Consider changing the current animal husbandry regulations to allow for permitted uses in agricultural zones with a specified acreage requirement, and as a conditional use in the residential zones with a more substantial acreage requirement."
The hearing scheduled in September will consider removing the section on conditional use in residential zones.
"A horse is not a farm animal. They should be treated like a pet, not like goats and pigs," Layman said this week. She made a similar argument during the hearing last month. Layman, along with some residents, is circulating a petition in favor of allowing horses on lots over 10 acres in residential districts.
Highland County allows horses on lots of five acres or more in R-2 districts, said Layman, as does Fairfax County.
She cites statistics from the Virginia Horse Council and the Virginia Farm Bureau on the economic impact horses have in Virginia.
Horses are the "new golf" and a billion dollar industry in Virginia, according to the farm bureau. The average Virginia horse owner spends $2,969 per year per horse on goods and services, Layman quoted from the council. She added the horse industry supports 20,000 jobs statewide.
Hall counters the argument in favor of horses in Bath's residential districts with past problems. Animal husbandry includes everything, he notes. In the past, supervisors have received complaints of horses in neighbors' swimming pools and donkeys roaming loose.
One of Layman's Mitchelltown neighbors has goats on his property, she said. The goats are allowed as a grandfathered use. "Grandfathering" is the practice of allowing an existing non-conforming use to continue without change after a revision to the zoning regulations.
Layman said none of her neighbors object to her having horses on the property. Rezoning the property to agricultural use is not an option, she was told, since the property is surrounded by residential zoning. Such rezoning would be spot zoning prohibited by state code.
County administrator Bonnie Johnson said the decision on horses and other livestock in residential districts "needs to be decided by the community." The supervisors left the provision in the plan so the issue could be studied and decided later, she said.
The Bath County Planning Commission has added discussion of the proposed change to its agenda for Monday. The commission is charged by state code to develop the comprehensive plan and spent two years working on the new plan, recently adopted by the supervisors.
County planner Sherry Ryder is in Charlottesville this week for a training session and was not available for comment.
The commission will meet Monday, Aug. 27 at 7 p.m. in room 115 of the courthouse. The public hearing before supervisors will be held Tuesday, Sept. 11 at 7:30 p.m. in room 115 of the courthouse.
| 
)