Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Animal Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force debates how to define residential, rural and urban zones for animal rules
Summary
At its Feb. 26 meeting, the Domestic Animal Task Force debated whether water and sewer connections or lot size should determine whether properties are classified as urban or rural for animal permitting, and formed working groups to draft zoning options.
Members of the Anaconda Deer Lodge County Domestic Animal Task Force met Feb. 26 at the Opportunity Community Center to debate how the county should define residential, rural and urban zones for animal regulations and to form work groups to draft options.
Task force member Bill Willing said properties in development zones 1, 2 and 3, and new additions in Anaconda that are connected to water and sewer, should be treated as urban residential for purposes of animal permitting. Task force member Michelle Lennon emphasized that lot size must figure into decisions about how many and what types of animals are allowed.
"Land size should determine the number and type of permitted animals," Willing said, according to the meeting minutes. Lennon pressed for clear lot‑size thresholds before the group finalizes rules for urban and rural classifications.
Jeffery Miles, a task force member, referenced prior discussions on acreage calculations and tax implications and proposed forming small working groups to refine zoning recommendations. Miles also said the group should consider at what point regulations begin to infringe on property rights; Ed Beaudette countered that civic standards for animal care should guide limitations.
David Josephson described the assessment process he uses across Deer Lodge County to monitor animal‑related problems, and members raised enforcement concerns including animal hoarding and feral cat populations. Kevin Hart noted that development districts and remaining open green spaces affect classification decisions and community expectations.
The task force assigned a work group to draft multiple zoning options (Patti Davis, Brooke Gwin and Carl Hamming) and assigned Michelle Lennon, Lauren Bolton and Patti Davis to review sections 4–9 of an Ordinance 11‑A draft. Members said the assignments are intended to produce concrete zoning proposals the task force can consider at future meetings.
The discussion did not result in a vote on specific zoning definitions; members agreed to continue work in small groups and bring draft recommendations back to the full task force.
