Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington commission begins overhaul of animal confinement, setbacks and other conditional-use rules
Summary
Commissioners started a line-by-line cleanup of Chapter 9.8 (conditional uses), focusing on inconsistent livestock thresholds, accessory-structure setbacks that can allow two-foot side clearances, pot-bellied-pig exemptions and enforcement limits; no code changes were adopted and the commission will continue the review at the next meeting.
HUNTINGTON — Commissioners opened a detailed review of Chapter 9.8 of the Huntington code on Aug. 14, centering on the section that governs confinement and keeping of livestock and related conditional-use provisions.
The discussion identified multiple inconsistencies in the current language: some subsections reference 10,000 square feet, others 20,000; zone-specific references (industrial vs. residential) do not reflect Huntington’s current zoning structure; and accessory-structure setbacks in the chart could allow accessory buildings to sit as little as 2 feet from a property line while houses require much larger setbacks.
An unidentified resident who spoke at the meeting framed the enforcement problem bluntly: "If you can't enforce [an ordinance], even if you have the best intentions and you can't enforce it, then get rid of it." Commissioners agreed enforcement and clarity should guide the rewrite. Patrick, a commission member leading the code discussion, suggested simplifying the animal rules by using a performance- or best-practice standard: "I kinda would like it just to say enclosures meet the standards or best practice for the animal type," he said, arguing that referencing widely available husbandry standards may be less confusing than many small numeric rules.
Topics discussed included: - Square-foot thresholds for livestock units (10,000 vs. 20,000) and inconsistent zone references. - Accessory-structure setbacks: the code chart currently shows a 25-foot front setback for houses but lists accessory structures with a 2-foot side setback in some entries, a discrepancy commissioners flagged for safety and access concerns. - Treatment of animals as pets versus livestock (examples in the transcript note residents keeping large numbers of chickens/pets that are not currently counted as livestock). - Exemptions such as pot-bellied pigs being excluded from livestock counts. - Practical enforcement approaches: staff and commissioners favored education and written reminders for property owners in many situations; the transcript records staff outreach to health officials in at least one case.
No amendments or formal approvals of code text were made; commissioners agreed to continue the phased cleanup of Chapter 9.8, starting with subsection g (confinement of livestock) at the next meeting. Commissioners asked staff to circulate the relevant code excerpts and suggested draft language before the next session.
What’s next: subsection g will be the focus at the next meeting; staff will send the section to commissioners in advance so the panel can workshop specific proposed text.
