Mathews County Animal Control Officer Jean Roberts asked the planning commission Tuesday night to take under consideration a zoning amendment that would require minimum acreage for horses and livestock on private property.

Roberts said that she has seen an increase in cases in which people have moved into the county, put horses “on postage stamp-size yards,” and “run into dire straits” in the winter when vegetation dries up and there is inadequate grazing area available.

Most rural counties in the region have a basic ordinance requiring at least a minimum grazing area of one acre per horse, said Roberts, with increasing area required as more horses are added. While the state’s animal laws don’t require shelter for horses, she said, they do require adequate food and water.

“And they’ve got to have enough acreage,” she added.

Any regulation enacted wouldn’t apply to people already in the county, said Roberts, since they would be grandfathered, but it would help with new residents who want to own livestock.

Planning and Zoning Director John Shaw said in a report that a person can put as many horses as he or she wants on a lot as small as one acre under the current ordinance. The only regulation addressing the matter in the zoning ordinance deals with setbacks for structures that house horses.

A possible text amendment seems warranted, said Shaw, whether its purpose is to make sure animals have enough space and food or whether it deals with health and environmental issues related to stockpiling animal waste.

The ordinance being proposed allows horses in the rural, residential-1 and residential-2 districts. It would require one useable acre per horse, with a maximum of 10 horses allowed if they’re being kept only for personal use. “Useable acreage” would exclude Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas, areas occupied by residential structures, and/or wetlands areas, according to the proposal.

Setback requirements for stables, barns or other structures would be 50 feet for side yards and 100 feet for front- and backyards.

Fencing would also be required, and manure stockpiles would have to be kept 100 feet away from the RPA and all property lines.

Shaw said the ordinance doesn’t mandate that a stable be provided, and it doesn’t define what constitutes adequate shelter, care, feed or space, since those issues are the purview of the animal control officer.

The ordinance also sets minimum lot requirements for cows, sheep, goats, pigs and other livestock, but not for poultry. The setback, fencing and waste management requirements for all livestock would be the same.

There would be additional limitations on commercial stables, including a limit of five horses that can be boarded at stables on roads that are not in the state highway system, a requirement that commercial stables have 10 acres or more in order to have horse shows, and a limit of four horse shows a year at commercial stables less than 20 acres in size.

During discussion of the matter, board of supervisors liaison Jack White asked what would constitute “un-useable acres,” and Roberts said that a common-sense determination would be that if part of an acre were wooded or in wetlands, it wouldn’t be useable for a horse, but the term “useable” could be defined if necessary.

Asked what action she would take if she were called to a site where the pasture area was denuded and there was an emaciated horse, Roberts said she would feed the horse, try to determine if the owner was in financial straits, and attempt to help the owner properly care for the animal. If the owner didn’t take action, she said, she would eventually seize the horse, give it to a rescue organization, and take the case to court, where a judge would determine the future course of action.

Commission member Mike Lowe asked whether the amendments to the ordinance would address the issue of adequate care for animals. “Will codifying this change anything?” he said.

Roberts said it would give people moving into the county guidelines to follow.

Lowe said that laws should be as simple and minimal as possible so they can be interpreted, and White agreed, saying that government can be “intimidating and frustrating” and that laws should be “predictable and understandable” and that he found the term “useable” not clear.

The commission tabled the matter for further discussion.