Animals in Urban Areas

Animals in Urban Areas

Download original report (pdf)

In small isolated communities and on the outskirts of metropolitan areas there is still room for animals. Here land is plentiful enough for urbanized man to keep animals for food, for commercial purposes, and for yard and household pets.

Even so, animal ways sometimes disturb. Animals make noise, emit odors, draw flies, create dirt and filth, and are sometimes dangerous. Consequently, zoning ordinances require distance between the source of animal disturbances and the sphere of human recipients. Disturbing features that come not so much from animals per se as from man's management of animals in groups can also be minimized by space standards.

Another device to ease man's irritation at being in close quarters with someone else's animals is to limit their number. "Not more than three hogs weighing more than 50 pounds each," and "no more than two adult animals per acre and their immature offspring" are only two of many provisions regulating the degree to which land can be used for animals.

As in many other zoning matters, distinctions between commercial and noncommercial uses play an important part in regulating animal land use. A use accessory to a dwelling — such as keeping saddle horses for family riding — must not be permitted to become a business. Or keeping rabbits and poultry to supplement purchased food supplies must not be conducted on such scale as to constitute commercial farming.

Keeping and raising animals usually is permitted in large-lot zones. In this report, residence districts with required minimum lot areas of up to and including five acres have been analyzed; those with larger required areas have not been included. Though this division may seem arbitrary, for several reasons it appears that the five-acre district is the realistic top limit of zones that are under predominantly urban influence.

In rural farming areas there is no need to be concerned about lots being too small. The pressure to subdivide agricultural land occurs in the outer fringe areas. Furthermore, rural farming areas traditionally have resisted regulation by state or county governments. And finally, a five-acre minimum lot size for a residence zone has been upheld by the courts (see Fischer v. Bedminster Township, Supreme Court of New Jersey, December 22, 1952, 92 A 2d 378, ZONING DIGEST for March 1953; page 37).

In effect, the existence of a zoning provision establishing a minimum of five acres (or one, two, or three acres, as the case may be) is a signal that urban development is imminent, if not actually under way.

A farm, as defined by the Bureau of the Census, is all the land on which agricultural operations are performed by a person, either by his own labor alone or with the assistance of members of his household or hired employees. In the 1950 census, places of three or more acres were counted as farms only if agricultural products with a value of $150 or more, exclusive of home garden products, were produced in 1949. Also in the 1950 census, places of less than three acres were counted as farms if the value of agricultural products sold in 1949 amounted to $150 or more.

Maintaining a small subsistence farm has become a way of life for low-income families in many parts of the country. The seasonal factory worker, the person of marginal income, and the part-time worker are less vulnerable to economic change if they can produce some of their own food supply. Hogs are especially suitable for this purpose. Usually, they are purchased as shoats and raised to maturity. An average family may utilize five or six pigs in a year.

If zoning maps could be studied along with the ordinance provisions covered in this report, it would be possible to get a better idea of the various zoning districts in the urban-rural hierarchy. Even without them, it is probably safe to say that, with a few exceptions, these districts are under metropolitan dominance.

Donald J. Bogue, in a housing research study,¹ comments:

Villages and other rural-nonfarm residences far outside the built-up portion of the city may consist largely of homes of commuters who work in the city or its suburbs. The labor market area of metropolitan centers is known to be much more extensive than the built-up area. Living on a suburban farm has become a very common residential adjustment for many urban workers. Commuting to work from a distance of 15 miles outside the limits of the central city is not at all infrequent, even for residents of the smaller S. M. A. 's. Village and other rural-nonfarm clusters outside the densely settled part of the city also may contain businesses catering to the flow of traffic into and from the city, or establishments producing for, or otherwise connected with, firms in the city. [Editors's underscoring]

How strongly the desire to keep chickens, rabbits, or a goat figures in the rush to the suburbs is hard to say. Possibly the refugee from the city is not even conscious of his wish to have animals. Certainly the average man's picture of pleasant suburban living includes a dog and perhaps a cat, as well as a lawn and a barbecue pit. And the "gentleman farmer" type of suburbanite, who lives on a grander scale, may have in mind a private stable and a few cows as well.

The overlap areas between town and country are virtually the only places left where man can enjoy the advantages of urban society and at the same time reap the personal and economic benefits offered by domestic animals. The authors of an increasing number of zoning ordinances appear to recognize this phenomenon.

In the main table in this report, number 1, zoning ordinance provisions dealing with animal land uses are classified by minimum lot size of residence districts on the assumption that the acceptability of animals belonging to other people bears a relationship to their proximity. Dimensional standards also appear in the other compilations. All tables are at the end of this report, for reference purposes.

A few special problems, where the conflict between urban and rural characteristics is especially sharp, are discussed in the following section.

Some Special Problems

Fur-Bearing Animals; Chinchillas

The raising and breeding of foxes, mink, beaver, and lynx for the sale of their pelts call for land areas considerably larger than five acres. Outdoor runs and pens are required for their keeping. For carnivorous fur-bearers, special equipment and buildings are often needed for the preparation and storing of food. Killing, skinning, fleshing, drying, and pelting are all part of the operation of a fur farm.

For these reasons alone, fur farms are assigned to agricultural zones characterized by large minimum lot areas. Animal odors and the psychological effects of the pelting operation on fur farm neighbors are additional justification for not permitting them in suburban areas.

The new chinchilla business presents a somewhat different regulatory problem. Until 1954, chinchillas were raised almost entirely as breeding stock. Small and inoffensive, a few pairs of these attractive rodents could be kept in a house, a basement, or a garage, much as if they were household pets.

However, by 1954, the supply of animals had grown to the point where pelts could be marketed. On June 21, 1954 the Farmers Chinchilla Cooperative of America held an auction, and on that day chinchilla raising became a full-fledged industry. Even so, and because of the nature of the animal itself, chinchilla raising for commercial purposes differs from commercial raising of other fur animals.

One of the problems in western states — where the chinchilla business got its start — is to determine the point at which it ceases to be a hobby permissible in any residence district and becomes a commercial enterprise. It is clear that a few chinchillas, properly attended to, are less annoying to neighbors than, for instance, a barking dog or a night-prowling tomcat — even though the auction block may be the destination of the chinchillas.

Consequently. the definition of "household pets" has on occasion been extended to include a limited number of chinchillas. This is illustrated in the zoning ordinance for Salt Lake County, Utah:

Household Pets. Animals or fowl ordinarily permitted in the house, and kept for company or pleasure, such as dogs, cats, and canaries, but not including a sufficient number of dogs to constitute a kennel as defined in this ordinance. Household pets may also include the keeping of not more than ten (10) pairs of chinchillas.

Under the Salt Lake County ordinance, chinchillas are allowed as household pets in residential zones where minimum lot areas range from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet.

The next step is to establish the difference between small- and large-scale chinchilla raising. Here again, the resemblance of this animal to small pets rather than to the usual commercially raised fur-bearers seems to override the general rule that activities carried on in a residence district shall be strictly noncommercial. In Salt Lake County, for example, the following activities are permitted in Residential Zone S-1A, minimum lot area one-half acre:

The keeping of animals and fowl for family food production; the keeping of not more than fifty (50) pairs of chinchillas, provided that an additional one hundred (100) pairs of chinchillas may be kept for each five thousand (5,000) square feet in the lot over and above one- half (1/2) acre; private stables; horses for private use only and not for rental.

Two things should be noted about this provision and others like it. One is the inference of physical resemblance between chinchilla keeping and the keeping of other small domestic animals. The other is the fact that chinchilla keeping, alone of the animal groups listed, is for a commercial purpose.

This brings us to one of the points of contention on zoning regulation of chinchilla raising. Breeders are inclined to emphasize the "non-nuisance" attributes of this activity and to claim that they should, therefore, be permitted to keep chinchillas in unlimited numbers in residential zones. This argument displays confusion between zoning and nuisance control. Other entrepreneurs could claim with equal justification that their operations do not constitute a nuisance to nearby residents. The exclusion of purely commercial uses from residential zones is in accord with sound zoning practice, regardless of nuisance considerations. Partial exception of chinchilla raising already constitutes a compromise. It is advisable to draw the line when the chinchilla becomes a commodity; that is, when the number of pairs owned by a breeder indicates that he intends to market the pelts.

Up to this point, chinchilla keeping, raising, and breeding have been considered activities that are incidental to the principal residential use of a lot. There are two situations when they clearly should be classed as commercial fur farming: (1) when the number of pairs exceeds the maximum permitted by the ordinance in connection with a principal dwelling, and (2) when chinchilla fur farming is the principal use of a parcel. Some tests of the latter are whether the animals are marketed, whether they are killed on the premises, whether their pelts are marketed, and whether the owner has another primary occupation. Chinchilla farms are zoned no differently from other farming activities carried out on a commercial scale.

Even when classed as a commercial enterprise, a chinchilla farm may be distinguished from other fur farms (except rabbit) because of differences inherent in the animals themselves. In Los Angeles County, for instance, chinchilla and rabbit farms are permitted in Zone A-1 Light Agriculture, whereas mink and fox farms (along with alligator and ostrich farms) must be located in Zone A- 2 Heavy Agriculture.

Animal Hospitals

In the early days of zoning, all uses with obnoxious characteristics were relegated to one zone, usually a heavy industrial district and sometimes an "unrestricted" district. Dog pounds, veterinary offices, and small animal hospitals possessed the nuisance characteristics of odor and of noise from barking, whining dogs, and animals resisting confinement.

However, a number of zoning ordinances adopted within the past five years have permitted animal hospitals in other than industrial zones. One reason for this change of classification is the new structural treatment of animal shelters. Air-conditioning makes it possible to have completely closed buildings and runs; soundproofing removes the major objection to location near other commercial uses. An animal hospital, then, is one of those uses that has carried a bad name but no longer deserves it — if it is soundproofed, air- conditioned, and has no outside pens. Under these conditions, and with requirements for distances from residences it may even be permissible in a neighborhood business district.

Also contributing to a changed zoning classification for animal hospitals is the residential movement to suburbs. If people living in low-density, semirural areas keep more animals than city dwellers, then they also create a bigger demand for veterinary services. Furthermore, animal hospitals are similar to other animal uses in these areas and can be made subject to similar space and area requirements.

Therefore, the two kinds of use districts to which animal hospitals and veterinary offices are functionally related are low-density suburban districts and business districts. Numerous examples of agricultural zoning of animal hospitals are listed in Table 1. Examples of business zoning of animal hospitals are to be found in Table 3. However, since most, if not all, ordinances mentioned therein are partially pyramidal, animal hospitals first permitted in a residence district may also be allowed in commercial and industrial districts.

Although these provisions are not necessarily designed for suburban areas, the location and construction requirements specified are also appropriate for decentralized business zones surrounded by residential development.

Riding Stables

Like animal hospitals, riding stables are commercial. Yet, using animals as they do, they have some of the problems peculiar to animal land uses. Consequently, when deciding upon an appropriate zone for the location of riding stables, both the commercial and animal characteristics should be taken into account.

In suburban or semi-rural areas, a distinction should be made between a private stable (as shelter for saddle or farm horses) and a public stable (as shelter for horses kept for remuneration). Thus, for example, the Los Angeles zoning ordinance defines a private stable as "a detached accessory building for the keeping of horses owned by the occupants of the premises and not kept for remuneration, hire or sale." A public stable is "a stable other than a private stable."

Other kinds of phraseology used to distinguish commercial and private stables appear in Table 2. Employment of the pre-automobile term "livery stable" — the feeding, stabling and care of horses for pay: and the keeping of horses in readiness to be hired — also separates commercial stables from those for family use.

Early in the 1900s, a private stable was a normal auxiliary use in residence districts. (In those days, a garage was considered the nuisance.) Some provisions that permit private stables in any residence district may simply be carry-overs from an old zoning ordinance.

Whether they are for private or commercial use, stables are often required to conform to dimensional standards, although, as is the case of many other kinds of animal land uses, the existence of such standards and what they consist of depend on the character of the district.

In highly urbanized areas, private stables are seldom permitted and public stables are treated as a commercial use. Practice seems to permit the location of public stables in commercial or industrial districts. However, because they are used mostly as a recreational facility, they should be suitably located in relation to bridle paths in public parks.

Table 4 shows provisions for equestrian buildings in various urban zones. (Some of these ordinances also provide for private and public stables in open development districts.)

Kennels

Although dogs and cats are probably the most ancient of household pets, our commercial civilization has complicated their domestic status, To prevent the operation of a dog kennel, camouflaged as the keeping of pets, some cities have seen fit to limit the number of adult animals permitted in a household at one time. Thus, in Muskegon, Michigan a "kennel" is defined as "any premises on which four or more dogs four months old or older are kept." Kennels are classed as a commercial use. A similar definition prevails in Los Angeles, where a commercial kennel is permitted in agricultural and industrial zones and also in a suburban residential zone on approval of the zoning administrator (see Table 2).

In Pensacola, Florida, on the other hand, a kennel is a place where five or more dogs are kept. And in Salt Lake and Los Angeles counties, the keeping of only three or more dogs, four months or more old, constitutes a kennel.

Municipalities are empowered in various ways to regulate dogs. They may require owners to secure a license before dogs are permitted to run at large; they may adopt ordinances preventing dogs from running at large the year around, during the garden season, at nighttime, or on school grounds; or they may restrict barking, howling, growling, or fighting dogs from running at large. Measures for the prevention of rabies are widespread. Dog kennels may be regulated under the authority to license dogs, and they may be supervised for public health reasons.

In short, dog ordinances are numerous and diverse. The zoning regulation of dogs should be concerned mainly with the distinction between keeping dogs as household pets and keeping dogs for remuneration.

Hog Ranches; Livestock Feed Yards

The chief point to be emphasized about hog ranches and livestock feed yards is that they are among the agricultural uses generally excluded from areas that border on suburban development. To prohibit them, ordinances either specifically except them from the permitted farming uses or they limit the number of animals that can be kept on a parcel of land.

Hog ranches are a special case when utilized for the disposal of garbage or offal, as well as for the production of meat. Odors resulting from storing large quantities of garbage, and its attractiveness to rats, make farms of this sort especially obnoxious. The steady stream of garbage trucks gives them traffic generating characteristics unlike other farming operations.

To prevent this kind of hog raising in an A-1 Light Agriculture Zone, the Los Angeles County zoning ordinance specifies that:

. . . a person shall not keep a hog or pig of any age either for his personal use or otherwise less than one hundred fifty feet (150') from any highway or less than fifty feet (50') from the side or rear lines of any lot or parcel of land.

. . . a person shall not feed any such hog or pig any market refuse or similar imported ingredient or anything other than table refuse from meals consumed on the same lot or parcel of land, or grain.

This section does not permit a hog ranch [defined as any premise where three or more weaned hogs are maintained].

Livestock feed yards, maintained for the conditioning of livestock prior to slaughter, are also considered noisome. In addition, they require sites on interstate highways or railroads.

Table I

Table 2

Table 3

*See Table 1 for ordinances that permit animal hospitals and veterinarians in large-lot residence districts.

Table 4

*See Tables 1 and 2 for numerous ordinances that permit stables in large-lot residence and agricultural zones.

Endnotes

1 Donald J. Bogue, Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas, 1900–1950, Housing and Home Finance Agency. (Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. 1953.) 76 pp. 55 cents.

2 No lot area minimum as such. However, another provision indicates that a "residential site" is not less than 6,000 square feet. This ordinance also states that when an RA district is reclassified to another district, animal land uses "shall be completely discontinued within a period of six months from the date of reclassification."

Copyright, American Society of Planning Officials, 1956.