|
Horses herded back to planning commission
BY CHARLES GARRATT • STAFF WRITER
WARM SPRINGS - In an action that didn't surprise any of the two dozen citizens still around for the late public hearing Tuesday, the Bath County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to direct the planning commission to research and clarify a controversial sentence on animal husbandry included in the recently adopted comprehensive plan.
The sentence 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 residential zones with a more substantial acreage requirement."
Until November 2004, horses and other livestock were allowed in residential districts with a conditional use permit. Supervisor Stuart Hall reminded the board the provision was removed from land use regulations because of recurring problems with a horse invading a neighbor's swimming pool and a noisy donkey in Mitchelltown.
Hall offered a substitute motion to remove the sentence from the plan, which failed on a 1-4 vote. Hall provided the only dissenting vote on the motion the board passed.
Attorney Betty Cauley said, "It appears the land use regulations got changed for one or two specific problems. That is bad use of land use policy.
"You don't try to use land use regulations to prohibit horses from all properties to solve enforcement problems. You put in place enforcement to fix the problem. You don't punish all horse owners," Cauley added.
Cauley represents Allen and Ann Layman who purchased 13 acres in Mitchelltown before the change in regulations prohibited horses in residential districts. They built a barn on the property and then discovered they could not use it for horses after the regulations were changed.
"I don't know how this became a Layman law," said supervisor Richard Byrd.
Many of those who spoke at the hour-long hearing supported the Laymans as responsible neighbors and horse owners.
A petition with 24 signatures presented by Mitchelltown resident Carl Chestnut addressed the Layman property directly, but also stated in general, "We … do not want horses and livestock allowed in R-1 and R-2." The petition asked the board to remove the sentence from the comprehensive plan.
While the change in the plan and any subsequent land use regulations might impact the Laymans, board members and the two members of the planning commission present focused on the broader issue of animal husbandry and horses in residential districts.
The majority of those attending the hearing supported either the Laymans specifically or horses in residential districts in general. Warm Springs property owner Peter Mennen said, "We need to treasure who we are and embrace what it means to be a rural area." He added, "Nothing pleased us more than the lowing of cattle."
Chestnut, on the other hand, said he had talked to the people in King Town. "We don't want to smell horses," he said.
Jay Trinca of Bacova suggested changing the language to be more specific. He said the way it is currently written, the plan was talking hogs, goats, and camels.
Kenny Lindsay took the argument one step further, complaining zoning laws were "telling me what I can do with land I bought." He said it doesn't take three or four acres to keep a horse.
Lindsay stirred a laugh in the courtroom when he asked rhetorically, "What are they going to do with their barn? Put apartments in it?" - a reference to the two-hour hearing on converting the old Millboro school buildings to apartments that preceded the hearing on the livestock issue.
Allen Layman recounted the couple's experience since buying land and building in the county. "We are good country folk. We want to be good neighbors," he said. The Laymans presented a petition with 350 signatures to the board in support of horses in residential districts.
Byrd noted the Layman petition had signatures from residents all over the county. He said the comprehensive plan is talking about land use for the county. "I have a concern in my district," he said. But what concerned him more is, "We put the law on the books but we don't enforce it."
Warm Springs District supervisor Jon Trees made a motion to leave the paragraph in place and direct planners to refine it through the land use regulations. "The paragraph needs to be in there to protect all people," Trees said.
Hall wanted the clause removed, also to protect people. "People want smart growth. Residential districts are our growth areas. We do owe these residential people some protection," he said.
Supervisor Percy Nowlin reminded the board and the public in attendance, "This isn't going to be decided tonight." The planning commission will develop land use regulations based on the guidance of the comprehensive plans, he said. Those regulations will then come to supervisors for hearings and adoption.
"All of this is coming back to us," Nowlin said.
| 
