Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Udc Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews UDC amendments to clarify commercial boarding and private stables; staff to return with numeric limits
Summary
Council continued a code update to clarify how horses are regulated in Keller. Staff proposed keeping commercial stables subject to a specific‑use permit (SUP) and removing a fixed maximum in the code; council discussed private‑stable limits per acre and directed staff to return with numeric guidance.
City staff brought proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and Code of Ordinances on March 4 to clarify how horses and stables are regulated. The changes would keep commercial boarding operations (commercial stables) subject to specific‑use permits and remove a blanket numeric cap from the commercial definition, while placing animal‑care and sanitation expectations into permit conditions.
Staff said the proposed approach aims to give council and staff discretion to evaluate commercial boarding applications case‑by‑case and to apply site‑specific standards for shelter, fencing, sanitation and care. During an extended discussion, councilmembers and residents raised concerns about private properties with multiple horses and potential circumvention where a commercial operator could claim horses as "privately owned." Councilmembers asked whether the city should set a numerical limit for privately owned horses per lot or per acre, and compared nearby jurisdictions that tie allowances to lot size (for example, several nearby cities restrict horse ownership to lots of one acre or more and use ratios such as one animal per acre or a capped number on smaller lots).
After discussion, council asked staff to return with a concrete numeric approach that can be applied administratively: staff heard direction to consider a minimum lot size requirement to keep horses (for example, one acre minimum) and a per‑acre limit (staff discussed options such as two animals per acre or a related half‑acre increment), while retaining the SUP requirement and detailed standards for commercial boarding operations. Staff emphasized animal‑care enforcement would continue to be handled through animal‑control channels and, for welfare investigations, the Humane Society may be involved.
Ending: Staff will return with draft ordinance language implementing numeric thresholds and the SUP clarifications for council consideration at a future meeting.
