Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animals And Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sends horse‑boarding code rewrite back to staff after questions about acreage, zoning and rounding rules
Summary
After extended discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5–2 to recommend denial of proposed Unified Development Code changes addressing horses and commercial boarding, citing unclear acreage rules and potential unintended constraints on existing property owners; staff will revisit the draft before it goes to City Council.
The commission on April 22 voted 5–2 to recommend denial of a proposed rewrite of Keller’s Unified Development Code dealing with horses, private stables and commercial boarding operations, citing ambiguities and concerns that the draft could unintentionally restrict existing landowners.
Staff presented a package of clarifications and new rules intended to: consolidate conflicting definitions (UDC vs. code of ordinances), require a specific‑use permit (SUP) for commercial boarding operations, add a cap for privately owned horses in SF‑36 zoning, and remove duplicate livestock language from supplemental regulations. The draft would permit private stables in SF‑36 with a baseline of “1 horse per 0.5 acre” (examples in staff materials) and would require at least one acre of land in some cases. Staff said commercial boarding SUPs would require a standards‑of‑care plan and a showing of minimum grazing area per animal.
Several commissioners objected to basing allowances on zoning districts rather than acreage and flagged ambiguous rounding rules where fractional acreage could yield different permitted counts of animals. “It boggles my mind,” Commissioner Presinger said, arguing that the draft would allow horses in SF‑36 but could prevent otherwise appropriate uses in other residential districts with large lots. Commissioners urged staff to consider a uniform acreage standard rather than a zoning‑based rule so a property owner with the requisite land acreage in any residential district would be treated consistently.
Other commissioners noted that the amendment was prompted by prior code‑compliance complaints and that staff had tried to reconcile multiple parts of the code. Staff said the proposal was developed after stakeholder outreach and council work sessions and that some elements — such as allowing animal control authority to treat horses as livestock for enforcement — came from the city attorney.
After an extended discussion and suggested edits from commissioners, a motion to deny the current draft carried 5–2. The vote will be transmitted to City Council with the commission’s recommendation; staff said it will return with clarified language and examples for further consideration.
