Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, June 20, 1995                   TAG: 9506200080
SECTION: CURRENT                    PAGE: NRV-2   EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY 
SOURCE: BRIAN KELLEY
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ZONING LIMITS (BIG) HORSING AROUND

Montgomery County's zoning officials have been saddled with the question this spring after a case in a Blacksburg-area subdivision brought the issue before the county's Board of Zoning Appeals.

The question came to the board's attention after residents in the Deercroft subdivision complained that their neighbor was keeping two horses on his property, according to Jeff Scott, the county's zoning administrator.

One is a full-sized, standard-issue horse. The other is one of those miniature horses that's smaller than a pony.

The problem arose because Deercroft, located east of Blacksburg and above the Ellett Valley, is zoned as a residential subdivision. Such zoning prohibits the keeping of livestock. But the county's ordinance does not define exactly what's livestock and what's a pet. The landowner contends both animals are beloved pets.

The question is further complicated, in this case, because Deercroft is a large-lot subdivision. The landowner in question has three lots, plus access to a relative's land next door, for at least 17 acres of equine elbow room.

Scott, relying on his dictionary, ruled that the full-size horse was livestock, and therefore must hit the trail, so to speak. But he decided the miniature horse is a pet and may stay to romp another day.

Scott represents the county's first decision-making tier for zoning controversies. The horse owner went before the second tier, the county Board of Zoning Appeals, two weeks ago.

After hearing and seeing a presentation from the horse lover that included a slide of the miniature horse inside the family's home, the board affirmed Scott's decision: big horse goes, little horse stays.

Now, according to County Attorney Roy Thorpe, the home owner has a choice to make by early next month: he may abide by the decision and move the full-sized horse off the property; he may appeal the decision to the Montgomery Circuit Court; or he may apply to the county Board of Supervisors to rezone his land to agricultural status, where livestock is allowed.

Meanwhile, the county realizes it has a weak spot in its zoning ordinance that needs repair. "This is something that's kind of been a problem for a number of zoning administrators and boards of zoning appeals around the state," Scott said. Some of those cases may be familiar from headlines about Vietnamese potbellied pigs, such as the ones in 1993 in Alexandria and in 1990 in Roanoke County. So far, Montgomery County's disputes seem to be of an equine, rather than a swinish nature; there's another case involving a horse-riding ring that extends into land zoned for a subdivision in Shawsville that will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals next month.

Last week, Board of Supervisors Chairman Larry Linkous directed Thorpe and the county planning staff to work together to come up with some suggestions to amend the ordinance to solve the problem. The question, Thorpe said, is whether the county should have different rules regarding the keeping of animals in large-lot subdivisions. That's the type of place where, with a little more space, livestock would be less of a nuisance than they might be in, say, the heart of Blacksburg.