Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies resident’s request to keep goats, ducks and geese; orders removal within 30 days
Summary
After neighbors testified about persistent noise, flies and animals leaving the property, the board denied a reasonable‑accommodation request to keep goats, ducks and geese on residential property and ordered the animals removed within 30 days.
The Marion County Board unanimously denied a reasonable‑accommodation request to allow goats, ducks and geese on a residential R‑1 lot and ordered the animals removed within 30 days.
Planning staff and code enforcement described active violations at the property and recommended denial. Code enforcement officer Mary Anne Lopez noted onsite conditions and uneven grass cover that raised concerns about foraging space and mosquito risk from an unfiltered water feature used by fowl; sheriff’s investigator Justin McClure reported animals were being fed and cared for but agreed there were compatibility questions with the neighborhood.
The tenant and applicant, Jennifer Jones, described the animals as personal companions that provide therapeutic benefits to family members. “These animals provide important therapeutic and emotional benefits for my household,” Jones told the board and provided a letter from a medical provider supporting therapeutic use. The homeowner, Karen Loges, said she had allowed the arrangement because of the tenants’ needs but acknowledged she had not been fully aware of zoning limits.
Neighbors documented repeated disturbances. “The geese scream all the time,” said neighbor Wesley Wiesman, who described flies, nuisance conditions and damage to property. Code records show prior code enforcement cases and a currently open case related to animals on the parcel.
Commissioner Stone moved to deny the request for goats, geese and ducks and set a 30‑day compliance window to remove those species; the motion passed unanimously. The board indicated hens and household dogs that meet R‑1 limits were not part of the denial but reminded the property owner and tenants they must comply with county animal and nuisance codes.
Next steps: code enforcement will follow up on compliance; the board suggested the applicant consider relocating the animals to property zoned for agricultural use if companion farm animals are to be kept long term.
