Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Livestock Special Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County supervisors move Gerald Fuchs’ goat permit to Planning Commission
Summary
A preliminary review for a special-use permit to keep goats on a 1.191-acre R‑1 lot at 3632 Wolftown Hood Road was forwarded to the Planning Commission after discussion about herd size, fencing and health setbacks; the applicant currently keeps six goats, one of them pregnant.
Madison County supervisors voted to send a preliminary special-use application by Gerald Fuchs to the county Planning Commission for formal review and recommendation. The application seeks a special-use permit to keep livestock on a 1.191-acre R‑1 lot at 3632 Wolftown Hood Road (Madison County tax map 46 54 b).
The move came after staff described the case as arising from a neighbor complaint about livestock being kept on a property smaller than 2 acres. Planning staff told the panel the county’s zoning code requires a special-use permit for livestock on lots under two acres. "This case has come to us as a ... complaint initially about livestock being kept on a property smaller than 2 acres in the R1 District," staff member Mr. Nichols said.
Applicant Gerald Fuchs said the goats are kept behind a portion of his yard separated by a creek and that he plans to fence the back half of the property. "We only have a handful of goats, 5 goats," Fuchs said, later confirming there are currently six animals and that one is pregnant. Fuchs said the animals are for family use and his children’s education, not for sale.
Greg Cave, the county animal-control officer, told the panel the Commonwealth leaves much of the count-and-density judgment to local officers and veterinarians. Cave said he consulted a local veterinarian who suggested a rule of thumb of about "4 or 5 goats per acre" and warned against rigid numeric limits because such limits can affect 4‑H families and youth exhibitors. Cave also described the county’s enforcement practice: welfare concerns prompt a site visit and inspection, but counts alone generally trigger an initial, not recurring, visit.
Supervisors debated whether to set a cap on the number of animals as a condition of a permit. Several supervisors said they were reluctant to impose a fixed number at this stage and recommended that the Planning Commission consider details such as the dimensions of the fenced enclosure and input from animal-control and the Virginia Department of Health. One supervisor noted VDH setback guidance for animal housing near wells and suggested the applicant check well setbacks ahead of the Planning Commission hearing.
The board’s motion to forward case SU-05-25-01 to the next Planning Commission meeting passed by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally. Planning staff and animal-control officers indicated they will provide the Planning Commission with site details and professional recommendations for any permit conditions.
What happens next: the Planning Commission will review the special-use permit application, including the proposed fenced area, animal-control input and any VDH requirements, and will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which has authority to impose conditions or require a voluntary limit agreed to by the applicant.
