Huntington planning commission asks council to add annexation, variance review role; agrees to rewrite confusing setback and animal rules

Huntington — At a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Aug. 14, 2025, commissioners voted to ask the City Council to add language to the municipal code making clear that the commission will review annexation requests and variance applications and forward recommendations to council for final action.

The change, approved by voice vote with no nays recorded, was proposed to put the practice on paper so applicants and staff know the intended order of review: planning and zoning first, City Council final. Commissioners also agreed to begin a multi‑meeting effort to clean up other sections of the code, focusing first on conditional‑use rules in section 9.8 — specifically accessory‑structure setbacks and the provisions governing confinement and keeping of livestock.

Why it matters: putting the referral role into the code would formalize an existing expectation for applicants and reduce instances where items reach council out of sequence. The separate code cleanup could affect setback requirements, accessory structure placement, and how many animals residents may keep within city limits.

Vote and formal action - Motion: request that language be added to the municipal code so the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews and issues recommendations on annexation and variance requests and forwards those recommendations to City Council for final action. (Motion text as presented to the commission.) - Mover: not specified in the record (motion made from the floor) - Second: Trevor Calley (second recorded) - Outcome: approved by voice vote; commissioners answered “Aye”; no nays recorded.

What commissioners said and asked Gary Arrington, the city’s zoning administrator, and multiple commissioners identified several code provisions that they said are inconsistent or difficult to enforce. Among items flagged: - Setbacks: commissioners pointed out that the current setback chart reads in places that a principal dwelling must be 25 feet from the front property line, side setbacks are effectively 10 feet (minimum, 20 feet total between houses), and rear setbacks 25 feet. By contrast, accessory structures are written in one table with a 25‑foot front measurement but a side/rear requirement as little as 2 feet in some locations; commissioners observed that wording could allow an accessory structure to be built even with the primary dwelling and only 2 feet from a side property line. - Accessory‑structure clearance and fire access: commissioners said the apparent 2‑foot side clearance for some accessory structures could hinder fire access and suggested clarifying that accessory structures even with the front setback must meet a 10‑foot clearance from adjacent dwellings or otherwise meet fire‑department standards. - Lot widths and small lots: commissioners discussed 50‑foot‑wide lots in parts of town where driveway and parking space are limited and noted that current rules may force parking into the street for those lots. - Housing types: commissioners discussed single‑wide manufactured homes, modular units and containerized housing as options to increase housing supply, noting that newer manufactured homes can be built to higher appearance standards and may be appropriate in some locations.

Animal and livestock rules Commissioners devoted substantial time to the city’s “confinement and keeping of livestock” subsection in the conditional‑use rules. They identified multiple inconsistencies and enforcement problems: - Conflicting area thresholds: the section currently references different minimum parcel sizes in different subsections (examples given in the discussion: 10,000 square feet in one place, 20,000 in another). Commissioners proposed standardizing the rule so the same square‑foot threshold (discussed as 10,000 sq. ft.) would apply citywide rather than by zone language that no longer exists. - Counting animals vs. pets: the code currently exempts some animals (pot‑bellied pigs were discussed as an example) from livestock counts when treated as pets; commissioners said that approach has allowed very large numbers of certain animals to be present if they are labeled “pets.” They discussed clearer definitions (for example, a livestock unit defined as three goats or sheep) and suggested establishing a small, consistent “pets” allowance before animals count toward livestock limits. - Density and nuisance concerns: members told several anecdotal enforcement examples (goats kept adjacent to a neighbor’s yard; trailers or RVs parked for long periods on streets) and emphasized the need to balance established, long‑standing animal keeping against new complaints. Commissioners noted that many current animal keeping situations predate present code and cannot be retroactively removed, but they want clearer rules going forward to avoid confusion for owners and staff.

Enforcement and next steps Commissioners and staff acknowledged enforcement limitations. They raised questions about which agency should enforce certain provisions (city code enforcement, county authorities, health department) and said putting clearer, consistent rules in the code would make enforcement easier. The commission asked staff to draft code language that: - Adds explicit duties for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and recommend on annexations and variance requests (matching the structure already used for subdivisions), and - Revises section 9.8 (conditional uses) to clarify accessory‑structure setbacks, accessory‑structure placement relative to principal dwellings, and the confinement/keeping of livestock (including consistent parcel‑size thresholds and a concise pets‑vs‑livestock definition).

Process items and schedule Commissioners agreed to take up code revisions in manageable segments rather than all at once. They decided to focus on section 9.8 and to concentrate first on subsection G (confinement/keeping of livestock and related provisions) at the next meeting, then move through other conditional‑use categories in order. The commission also discussed formation and staffing of a Board of Adjustment (an appeal authority) and noted the mayor had received at least one volunteer; the commission said the board would be assembled when needed per the code.

What was not decided No ordinance language was adopted at the meeting. The commission approved only a request to City Council to add the referral language; any actual code changes will require staff drafting, legal review and subsequent council action. No numeric vote tallies by member were recorded in the minutes; the motion passed by voice vote.

Next meeting and follow up Commissioners asked staff to circulate the relevant code subsections before the next meeting and to draft proposed wording for the annexation/variance referral language so the commission can review a concrete amendment before recommending it to council.