9/8/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I BOOK O 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF LDR AMENDMENT CONCERNING POT-BELLIED PIGS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of July 29, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP k' Al K' Community Development Director DATE: July 29, 1998 SUBJECT: Board Consideration of Staff Interpretation It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of September 8, 1998. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Prior to May, 1998, Community Development Department staff had interpreted the County's land development regulations (LDR's) to allow pot-bellied pigs to be considered as household pets and not livestock. That interpretation evolved over several years. The principal reasons for the interpretation were that pot-bellied pigs were different from regular pigs, that pot-bellied pigs were domesticated, that pot-bellied pigs were sold in pet stores, and that pot-bellied pigs were generally accepted as household pets. In recent years, complaints about pot-bellied pigs have increased. Consequently, the Animal Control Division of the County's Emergency Services Department requested that Community Development staff initiate an LDR amendment to ban pot-bellied pigs in non-agricultural areas of the County. An LDR amendment having that effect was subsequently processed by staff and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in May, 1998. After Board adoption of the LDR amendment to designate pot-bellied pigs as livestock and not household pets, Community Development staff interpreted the non -conformities provisions of LDR Section 904 as applying to pot-bellied pigs. Essentially, the staffs non -conformity interpretation allows pot-bellied pigs acquired prior to May, 1998 and kept as household pets to . remain in residential neighborhoods. According to that non -conformity provision, pigs that die could not be replaced, and no new pigs would be allowed as household pets. Recently, staffs interpretation of applying the non -conformity provision to the pot-bellied pigs as household pets prohibition has been questioned. This question arose after the Code Enforcement Board determined that, based on staff's non -conformity interpretation, a resident who has two pot- bellied pigs is not in violation of County regulations, because those pigs were acquired prior to May, 1998, when pot-bellied pigs were allowed as household pets. September 8, 1998 CJ 36 40