Resident urges council to allow hooved animals on annexed rural lots; staff to return with analysis

During public comment on Oct. 7, resident Becky Ronesby asked the Galt City Council to revisit R1A zoning provisions that prohibit hooved animals on properties that were annexed into the city but retain a rural character. She said a 1.9‑acre property on Simmerhorn listed as R1A had been represented as able to keep horses but the city code prohibits hooved animals without an explicit exception.

Ronesby asked the council to consider an exemption for larger annexed lots—suggesting a minimum acreage (1.5–2 acres) and a conditional‑use pathway so longtime residents or new buyers could retain historically appropriate animal keeping (horses, 4‑H livestock). She read the relevant code section (Title 6 §64.09(o)) that bans hooved animals in R1A city limits and urged a tailored approach for rural properties that were annexed.

City staff responded that annexation agreements previously allowed legal nonconforming uses to continue where they existed, and that a rural agricultural zoning category could be used in targeted areas to allow animal keeping where compatible with neighbors. The city’s planning staff (identified in discussion as “Chris”) said staff would research the issue and bring options back to council.

Council direction: Mayor Farmer asked staff to research the R1A rules, annexation conditions and whether a rural agricultural zoning designation or conditional‑use pathway would be appropriate for the areas described. The council did not take formal action at the meeting.

Ending: Staff will return with a report on possible code changes or annexation‑specific language to allow animal keeping on larger lots where appropriate.