The Inyo County Board of Supervisors approved zoning code updates on June 24 aimed at reducing animal‑keeping nuisance problems while preserving residents’ ability to keep animals for personal, educational and commercial needs.

Why it matters: The changes respond to an uptick in code enforcement cases involving large or poorly‑maintained animal holdings—reported examples included unsanitary kennel conditions, nuisance odors, flies, vermin and animals left without adequate daily care. County staff and animal control said available enforcement tools were limited in the ‘‘middle ground’’ between neighbor complaints and criminal‑code violations.

Planning staff presented amendments to section 18.78.310 (maintenance of animals) and related nuisance and setback rules. Key changes the board adopted include minimum setbacks for shelters and pens (no closer than five feet to a property line and specified distances from streams depending on vegetation), a maximum height for animal structures (15 feet), and explicit nuisance language that makes obstruction of neighbors’ reasonable use of property, unsanitary conditions and uncontrolled dangerous animals enforceable under county code enforcement procedures (Title 22).

The Planning Department and animal control also proposed relocating ‘‘kennel’’ oversight in the open space zone from a permitted use to a conditional use permit to allow conditions on large commercial dog operations. During a lengthy public hearing and board discussion, supervisors and staff debated the appropriate tool for oversight: conditional use permits, which can attach land‑use conditions and run with a property, versus a licensure approach already present in the county code (Title 8) that historically authorized the sheriff to issue kennel licenses for commercial breeders.

The board approved the zoning changes addressing nuisance standards, setbacks, water access language and structure height, and it added a purpose/whereas clause clarifying the county’s intent to protect traditional ranching and equestrian uses. The board declined at this meeting to enact the proposed change that would newly require a conditional use permit for kennels located in the open space zone; instead, supervisors directed the planning director to clarify the county’s kennel definition and to return to the Planning Commission for any broader redefinition affecting multiple zoning sections. The board also directed the sheriff’s office to revive and clarify the kennel licensing program under Title 8 so animal control can use licensure as a more nimble enforcement and monitoring tool.

Animal control officer Katie Burt and planning staff presented photos and case examples from Charleston View and other locations showing conditions that prompted the ordinance update; Burt told the board that seizing multiple animals in remote locations imposes large operational costs for the county and said earlier intervention tools would reduce animal suffering and resource strain.

Board members asked for clearer language that would not impede legitimate livestock operations or access to stock water; staff agreed to edit the stream/stock‑water sentence to read, “In no instance shall access to stock water be impeded.” Supervisors also asked for an explicit intent statement in the ordinance reflecting Inyo County’s history of ranching and animal uses to reassure agricultural and equestrian residents.

Next steps: Planning staff will return to the Planning Commission with revised kennel definitions and any recommended changes to where conditional use permits are required. The sheriff’s office will develop and present a plan to reinstate and clarify kennel licensing and associated fees.