# Council Planning and Public Works Committee - June 18, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 18, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2587 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2587?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-06-18 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,600 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning and Public Works Committee met on June 19, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with Bill Farmer presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the meeting, including consideration of an Animal Ordinance, which was deferred for further discussion. Two informational presentations were provided: a Design Excellence Update and a report on Items Referred to Committee. The committee took one motion and vote during the session and heard five public comments from members of the public. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 18, 2012: * Bill Farmer * Chuck Ellinger * Linda Gorton * Steve Kay * Chris Ford * Tom Blues * Diane Lawless * Julian Beard * Doug Martin * Peggy Henson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Keep Animal Ordinance in Committee** A motion was made to keep the animal ordinance in committee for further cultivation [timestamp: 1:36:14]. The motion was made by Julian Beard and seconded by Diane Lawless. The motion was decided by voice vote and was postponed. The following members voted in favor of the motion: - Bill Farmer - Chuck Ellinger - Linda Gorton - Steve Kay - Chris Ford - Tom Blues - Diane Lawless - Julian Beard - Doug Martin - Peggy Henson The following members voted against the motion: - Doug Martin - Chuck Ellinger ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the council regarding a proposed goat and pig ordinance. **Opposition** Juanita Gallivan spoke against the ordinance at [timestamp: 1:22:10], raising concerns about health risks, waste disposal, and property values. She questioned the lack of regulations governing humane husbandry, waste management, and animal control. Gallivan also noted the absence of input from the health department and highlighted potential environmental contamination risks. **Support** Laura Doth-Demartinez spoke in favor at [timestamp: 1:25:51], representing the Bluegrass Goat Justice League. She cited successful goat ordinances in Seattle and Charlottesville that had not resulted in major issues. Doth-Demartinez characterized goats as social, non-predatory pets and noted their benefits for weed control and milk production. Donna Martinez spoke at [timestamp: 1:30:13], stating her personal support for goats, citing their appeal as cute animals and her enjoyment of fresh goat milk. Dayan Doth spoke at [timestamp: 1:30:46], sharing personal reasons for wanting goats, including their ability to consume poison ivy and a preference for fresh goat milk over store-bought alternatives. Jeremy Porter spoke at [timestamp: 1:31:16] from experience with urban chicken keeping. He noted that proper animal husbandry practices reduce neighbor issues and argued that the ordinance's space requirements and noise provisions adequately address concerns about smell, noise, and water quality. ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Mike Moiser** was appointed to the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. * **Ned Crankshaw** was appointed to the UK Department of Landscape Architecture. * **John Rohwer** was appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission. ## Contested Items **Animal Ordinance** A proposal to allow miniature goats and pigs in residential areas generated heated discussion during the meeting. The debate centered on multiple concerns about permitting these animals in neighborhoods. Council members and public speakers raised several objections to the proposal: - **Property values**: Concerns were expressed that allowing livestock in residential areas could negatively impact property values - **Noise and odor**: Opponents cited potential noise and odor issues that could affect neighboring properties - **Animal control capacity**: Questions were raised about whether animal control services had adequate capacity to manage and regulate these animals - **Regulatory oversight**: Multiple speakers expressed concerns about unregulated animal keeping and the lack of sufficient controls The fundamental disagreement reflected a tension between individual property rights and the broader interests of neighborhood harmony and community standards. Those opposing the ordinance argued that the potential negative impacts on the residential character and quality of life in neighborhoods outweighed the benefits of allowing residents to keep miniature livestock. The proposal generated significant opposition from multiple council members and members of the public, indicating a lack of consensus on moving forward with the ordinance as presented. ## Animal Ordinance The committee discussed a proposed amendment to Section 4-11 of the Code of Ordinances to permit residents to keep pygmy, dwarf, or miniature goats and pot-bellied or miniature pigs under specific conditions [timestamp: 00:09:54]. **Proposed Requirements** The ordinance would establish size limits for the animals and require specific shelter and space requirements. The amendment also included provisions to prohibit excessive noise and unsanitary conditions, along with increased fines for violations. **Key Concerns Raised** Committee members expressed several concerns during the discussion: - **Noise impacts** on neighboring properties - **Property values** and potential effects on the community - **Animal abandonment** risks if residents could no longer care for the animals - **Enforcement capacity** and the city's ability to monitor compliance with the new regulations **Committee Members** The discussion involved Julian Beard, Steve Kay, Diane Lawless, Doug Martin, Tom Blues, and Peggy Henson. **Outcome** The committee voted to keep the ordinance in committee for further study rather than move it forward for immediate consideration. The motion passed with two nays, indicating that while a majority supported deferring the matter, some members opposed additional delay. ## Design Excellence Update Councilmember Tom Blues presented an update on the Design Excellence Task Force [timestamp: 1:36:47]. The presentation covered recent appointments to the task force, progress on drafting design guidelines for the downtown B2 zones, and plans to engage a consultant for the work ahead. The task force outlined an ambitious timeline, with goals to develop design guidelines, staff procedures, and zoning amendments by November. This comprehensive approach aims to establish clear standards for design excellence in the specified downtown areas. Councilmember Doug Martin raised concerns regarding demolition restrictions during the discussion. In response, the task force confirmed that their recommendations would include new rules addressing demolition, indicating that this issue would be formally addressed in the final deliverables. The item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action required at this time. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 08:52] The committee reviewed a list of items that had been referred to the committee for consideration. The discussion covered several planning and regulatory matters, including: * Sign ordinances * Building permit extensions * Zoning revisions * Street tree protection * Other planning matters This agenda item was presented for informational purposes. No action was taken on any of the referred items during this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Motion to keep the animal ordinance in committee for further cultivation --- ## Full transcript Welcome. Welcome. I'm Jay McCord, City Councilman in the 9th District, and with me as always on Fit City is my co-host, Michelle DeJesus, Dr. Michelle DeJesus, and Doctor of Nutrition. This is Fit City, where we look at our city through the lens of being fit, being well, and being healthy. We have a special show today and a special guest, but before we get into that, Michelle kind of set the table for us, so to speak, that what we're really talking today about is physical activity. Yes, but we're talking about it in relationship to childhood obesity. You have probably read, heard, or seen all the reports coming out recently through the IOM, through the CDC, telling us about how our children are becoming overweight and obese, and this is a real issue. Behind us, you're going to see we're at Woodland Park today. It's a beautiful day in Lexington, and the kids are out playing. But we really need to get on the ball here, And this segment is all about childhood obesity in Lexington and about one very special person and what she's doing to help that cause. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have just now assembled enough of a quorum to work. I know with several projects going on on a couple of roads, some people have been kind of left behind a little bit, so we look forward to having more join us as we go along. We don't have a tremendously deep agenda today. You have a couple of items and then our referral list of things to the committee. In fact, the packet itself is only three pages long, so we have... I can't hear. Have you been here long? No, I've been here. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Welcome. It's always nice to see returning people. Yes. All right. Thank you. I was dancing around waiting for a quorum. I think I got it. We've got three items on the agenda. The first is an animal ordinance that originally was referred to committee by Councilmember Beard when it was just a horse issue. It has since transcended into a horse, goat, and pig issue. And we had a small subcommittee work on this a little bit. I will just ask Councilmember Beard if he wanted to make any comments to this or lead a discussion on it, and we'll take our lead from his answer. Or not. Okay. Yes, sir. This is probably going to be a little better. This all started with an incident that happened in my district involving a full-grown horse in the backyard of an individual's home. a relatively small backyard. And the neighbors had at least two instances where the horse escaped and they had to corral it themselves, not the owners, but the other neighbors, and bring it back. But the situation was that the horse was not housed. The horse didn't have enough grass to graze. It was just not a good situation, and we had to kind of insert ourselves at that point to get the horse moved to a more appropriate place. It kind of grew like topsy after that when we started thinking about other instances where people keep miniature horses as pets. People keep pot-bellied pigs as pets. and then the subject of goats came up, and we found out that there was quite a lot of desire to house goats in residential areas for various and sundry, very legal, and I think, in my opinion, probably to a level of proper utilization of goats. But that whole situation of goats, for some people who are not exposed to goats and don't know anything about goats, and they put them into a class of farm animal that they would think would not be good for a neighborhood. And so we've had this by-play back and forth. Council Member Kay and Council Member Farmer and myself have had numerous meetings on this subject. And we want to get it out there and that everybody have their say about what we do and see if there are any ways that we could maybe come to some agreement as to what we actually do about, quote, farm animals, if that's the moniker we're going to put on them. And I know at least one person here who is quite familiar with goats and the utilization of goats and why goats. and we'll give her an opportunity to speak also. But that's kind of like the preface to the rest of the meeting, I think, Mr. Chair. And so let's go from there, I guess. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. I appreciate it very much. I have Council Member Kaye signed up for commentary. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I want to provide a little more background, if I can. Some of this was, the timing was coincidental when this came forward, when there was an interest in the whole question of regulating animals. And I had some people approach me who are more interested in urban farming, who now keep gardens, grow food. Some keep chickens. Some keep rabbits. They were interested in expanding that. and they asked if I would put forward a change in the ordinance that would allow for small tigs, park-outly tigs, and miniature goats. And we have been pursuing that. I think we separated out the question of the horses. I've got that solved because there is a state law, A, and B, the present ordinance also covers horses. It was just a matter of what animal control could do as far as being able to save a horse from a bad situation and where are they going to put them when they do. I think they only have, I believe Chief Bowling, one stall available for horses at any given time. so they have to take a number and you rotate them, I guess. There are, however, a couple or three rescue horse farms in central Kentucky, I think one in Woodford County, maybe one in Fayette County, that will take horses that sometimes you'll see on TV where a farm has been raided The horses haven't looked like they've eaten in four months, and there is no adequate shelter for them or anything else, and they've moved them to these farms, and it's worked quite well for the animals and for the city itself. Go ahead. Okay, so that aspect is taken care of. What I'd like to do is I'm going to read the actual short version of the ordinance. And before I do that, I want to explain that there is right now within the Code of Ordinances a prohibition against hogs, goats, and pigs. And what this does is it changes the ordinance to allow certain kinds of goats and pigs. So the short version, this is an ordinance amending Section 4-11 of the Code of Ordinances relating to the keeping of hogs, goats, and pigs, to permit the keeping of pygmy, dwarf, or miniature goats, and pot belly or miniature pigs, to prohibit the owner or harborer of such an animal from permitting the animal to make noise sufficient to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, allowing the accumulation of animal excrement or permitting the existence of unsanitary conditions and enclosures of surroundings where the animal is kept to increase the fine, the existing fine in the ordinance, to increase the fine for violation, and to permit the impounding of any animal which is the subject of any violation. So in sum what this does is it amends the ordinance and allows certain varieties of pigs and goats under certain conditions. The conditions are that they do not essentially create any disturbance for their immediate surroundings. There's more specifics. I think people have seen the details about what the size of the goats would be and the numbers and how they would have to be provided for shelter and all of that. So that's the essence of it. But what has happened is that many people have sent me and other council members emails, and I have also received, along with other council members, a set of petitions that's headed say no to goats. So a lot of people seem to believe that this will create a difficulty for them, and I want to address that. But if you, people don't have that in front of them, but, oh, they may not. But the preamble to this petition talks about the concern that people have, public health issues and so on. What I want to emphasize is that the language essentially indicates that these are all, the concerns are essentially speculative. They're what-ifs. So the petition says the nuisance issues could be problematic, that there's a potential for personal property problems, there's possible fecal runoff. So the language says there might be problems. And what I am going to encourage people to think about is that this change in the ordinance is permissive. It allows some people to do some things that they would like to do. and the people who object, I think I understand their concerns, but their objections are based on some speculation about what difficulties there might be. We've talked to animal control, and they don't believe that there will be a significant issue. In fact, they already have. I've got some numbers here. Let me get to the right place. In the last two years, Animal Care and Control has had 34 calls regarding pigs and goats. So there are people keeping them now illegally. They're not permitted, but they're keeping them. Animal Control has responded to 34 calls about them. When they reviewed this ordinance, they thought that it would not increase, and in fact it might decrease their difficulties, because if the animals are legal and animal control comes and they have to impound them, somebody has a vested interest in coming to get them. If they're impounded and they're not legal, people are not going to step forward. I think that's basically kind of the overview that I wanted to provide. and again to emphasize that for some people, this is a way that they can expand their interest in urban agriculture. It is an interest that's growing not only in Lexington but nationally. It's a good way to use the land. It allows some people to, whether it's vegetables or it's animals, to increase their connection to the natural environment. So I would, I guess I won't make a motion at this point, but I will, at some point I will make a motion to move this ordinance onto the agenda for the full council. But the last thing I want to say is I believe there are people in the audience who would like to speak to this issue, and if the chair and the committee is willing to allow that at this point. I had one other person of the council signed up for commentary at this time. I was going to take that and any other council members. Then we have one, two, three, five people signed up. And then we may have questions that might bring others to the microphone. Next up is Council Member Diane Lawless. Thank you. In reading this, one of the things we talked about was allowing chickens but not roosters. I believe that presently chickens are allowed but roosters are not. Roosters are not legal at the moment. They are not. My understanding. Okay. And we did not deal in this ordinance with anything except pigs and goats. Okay. because that's the only complaints I ever get are roosters crowing. So the other thing is would this apply to there are a few parcels of land in the urban service area that are zoned R1, but their land use is agricultural. Would this apply to them? I believe it would, yes. No, thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those of us who have not had the privilege of being on the work group, I think it is up to us to ask some of the questions that our constituents are asking. And I would like to bring forth some of those questions because I've actually heard from a number of constituents, and I imagine you all have also. And I'm trying to get objective information when I ask. And I have three particular issues that have been brought to me by many, many constituents. The first is noise. And I'll just say what the three are, and then if those of you who've heard from all the experts can let us know what the situation really is. The first is noise. The second is, did you discuss standards for housing? And the third, standards for housing, particularly pigs. And the third is provisions for unwanted, abandoned animals. and Council Member Kay I know that you stated that the Humane Society and Animal Care and Control seem to have no problem with this I'm interested in and I trust we'll also hear from our Animal Care and Control and Humane Society folks we don't know what the situation will be once if this is passed and these are all made legal we do not know or really have any idea how many might be unwanted or abandoned. So I'm interested in knowing what the discussion was if there is a large number of abandoned animals. Who shelters those? Who takes care of those? and does our animal care and control system feel that we have enough folks to enforce these? And then finally, the ordinance mentions Section 10-33.1 of the ordinances, but that was not included in here. Does anybody have a copy of that that we could each have? That has to do with slaughtering of animals. and then I'll just let those questions be answered by the folks who delved into this. I don't remember us having a specific conversation about noise. I know we did have a specific conversation about size of structure and the setback from it. And then on the last, what was the last one? The last one was the true capacity of someone to provide for the unwanted abandoned animals or those that get loose just like dogs get loose and other animals get loose. I don't believe that's something we tried to address, but I would defer to Councilmember K. So if I can, in the language of the proposed ordinance, to speak to the question of noise. Unlawful for the owner or harborer of an animal listed above to permit the animal to make such noise as to disturb the peace and quiet of the people in the neighborhood where the same is kept. So that's part of the ordinance, and there's an enforcement procedure, and there's a series of fines that are outlined in Section D, 411D, for first offense, and it's an escalating set of fines. So could I just quickly ask, so then the noise part would be enforced by our police, just like other noise? Yes. Thank you. On the, yeah, the standard for housing, again, is indicated in the ordinance. We had a fairly long conversation about this. And for goats, first of all, they can be no larger than 24 inches at the withers. The withers are the top of the back. Okay. The shoulders. Okay. And that each animal is provided at least 20 square feet of three-sided shelter space and at least 60 square feet of open space for each animal. With the pigs, there was simply a limit on the number of two, and I gather that for pigs, sheltering is less of an issue. They tend to wander around more and not need shelter in the same way. I think my aide passed out Section 1031 on slaughter, and the short story on that is that presently it is legal to slaughter permitted animals within the urban service boundary so long as the slaughtering is not within sight of neighbors and does not present an unsightly spectacle, I guess. I don't know how to put it, and I don't have it in front of me myself. No person shall within the urban service boundary slaughter any animal, including for personal consumption in any area visible at ground level from a street, sidewalk, or neighboring property. So this would be essentially this proposed ordinance is already subject to those slaughtering provisions. And on the provision for abandoned animals, is there someone here from Animal Control of the Humane Society who can speak to that? Good afternoon. Welcome. Good afternoon, Councilman. Abandoned animals is in the ordinance under a subsection, but it only addresses animals that are placed out on the street. They have to be injured, sick, or dying a lingering death. There is no other abandoned animals. The reason we get animals under sections 421 of the impoundment is because that animal is running that large. But the abandonment really doesn't apply unless somebody turns out a dog or a cat or a domestic animal that is dying or is severely injured or something like that and just leaves it, dumps it out of a vehicle. If I can. Yes, sir. Go ahead. If an animal was running at large, if it were a pig or a goat, it would come under the same provisions? Yes. 421, yes. And you have adequate facilities to handle that? At this time, we don't have the facilities. We can maintain a horse. We can maintain a goat or a couple goats at the same time. But if we get multiple animals, the law says we have to hold them between the five and ten days or the five straight A's in accordance to that. And then horses and things like that, we have to apply the one-year standard to because the local ordinance can't supersede the state law that says they have to be held in a year's time. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, I don't know you. Hi, good afternoon. I'm president of the Lexington Humane Society. So nice to meet all of you all. Susan Malcolm, she says. I'm sorry? And you're Susan Malcolm? Susan Malcolm. Yes. So to add on to what Chief Bowling had to say, animals that are impounded into Lexington Fayette Animal Care and Control stay there for a stray period. At that point in time, if they're not reclaimed by an owner, They are evaluated just like any other animal is evaluated based on health and temperament. And then at that point in time, they're transferred to the Lexington Humane Society. So what Chief Bowling was saying was in animal care and control, we do have limited space, and we have been able to impound goats and pigs and house them in a humane fashion. As Council Member Kay referred to in the last two years, we've only had 34 calls involving goats and pigs. Not all of those calls involved impoundment of those animals. In the almost five years that I've been there, we've had five pigs, maybe five goats, but they've come in at very sporadic times, so we've been able to provide for them in a humane fashion. What our feedback was to the committee that was working on this is that we don't have any concerns with responsible owners owning these type of animals. The history that we have doesn't indicate that there's going to be this mass problem of people not taking care of their pigs and their goats. But we don't really know until this ordinance is enacted in the community and what kind of response the community is going to have to it. What we say is, you don't know if you don't try. We might have to come back from an animal care and control side as well as a Lexington Humane Society side and say, listen, there was a far bigger response by the community than we thought, and the intake and the impoundment of these animals has drastically increased. and therefore we may need counsel to therefore increase our budget for animal care and control, or the Lexington Humane Society may possibly need assistance with building the proper facilities to house these animals. You were also talking about pygmy goats earlier, and through this whole process, I've learned more about pigs and goats than I ever thought I would. Goats especially pose very limited distraction to other people. They don't require a lot of space. Because they don't eat meat products, their excrement does not have an odor like a dog or a cat or something else would have. They're really pretty benign pets, if you will. So, again, that's why responsible goat ownership to us of picnic goats does not really seem to present a problem based on the research that we've done. And we have already been dealing with people who already own pot-bellied pigs as pets. and they tend to be very smart animals. And again, the animal is as good as its owner, and that's where we run into things. So this is one of those situations that we're really not going to know until we get in there and see how the community is going to respond. Does that help? Excellent. Thank you. What's your other comment there? Thank you all for coming. The next sign-up is Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, just three things. On the issue of chickens, under the current ordinance, the only animals that are prohibited are goats, pigs, and hogs. And since I think a rooster is a chicken and chickens are not prohibited, roosters are, under the current ordinance, legal in the city. So I think from time to time we hear boosters here and there in town. On the issue of noise, if the police would be the agency to enforce the noise ordinance with reference to goats and or pigs, The police do not enforce the barking dog ordinance now. It's a very low-priority item, and a shorthanded police force finds that it doesn't have the capacity to try to get to some place where a dog barking when somebody calls is still barking when they get there. So there's no reason to believe that if we add goats and pigs to the mix that the noise ordinance regarding them would be enforced. And as you know, the noise ordinance has not been improved or updated in some 30 years, although we need not get into that history at this point. point. So one further thing too, in a conversation with a vendor at the farmer's market who sells goat cheese products, she informed me that the kind of goats that we'd be talking about here are extraordinarily expensive and that that it does seem to me that these miniature goats, if that's what we can call them, would probably not be raised as a food item since they do cost, according to her, several hundred dollars each. So I just thought I'd throw that in as another little factoid for the edification of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Blues. Next, I have signed up Councilmember Martin. Oh, Henson. Henson. Henson. Peggy Henson. Peggy is next. Welcome. Thank you, sir. You're most welcome. I had several questions. Some of them maybe have already been addressed, but I've got lots of concerns about this, and I think it's about being responsible livestock owners, what I call it, rather than pets. But if the Humane Society is, in fact, ready to enforce such an issue, and I don't think that question can really be answered until we find out what volume we would be talking about. And then they brought up the fact of what happens if a goat's running at large or a pig and it's apprehended and taken into custody and what happens to it. Is someone going to come adopt it or, you know, for their well-being? One of my big, big concerns that has been brought up by many constituents is the water quality. I don't know if that was addressed. We're campaigning to have pet waste picked up, and I don't see really how goats, if they are all vegetarian, then they would be fine. But I know that pigs are not. So I don't think there's anyone here that could. I'm afraid you're asking about subjects that I'm not really comfortable talking about. I don't know if there's an expert on excrement in the audience. I don't see anyone here, but that would be a definite question. I'm not particularly an expert on it. If you would, just please come to the microphone and identify yourself, sir. This gentleman may be able to offer some help. Hi, my name is Jeremy Porter. I'm a late addition on the list. And I'm not an expert on excrement, however. Yes? Just your address. Oh, my address. 905? Bryan Avenue. Thank you. And I work for Seedleaf, which is a nonprofit here that does work nourishing communities through community gardens, composting, these sorts of things. Also, a part of Seedleaf is CLUCK, which is the urban chicken keeping group here in Lexington. And I'm the poultry education coordinator for CLUCK. And so I network with other folks about particularly poultry issues. And related to that is poultry excrement. Not too far apart from that would be the excrement of these animals. Good husbandry, particularly some of the things that Council Member Kay mentioned about the space requirements for these animals, will allow for the excrement to either, A, break down because it's over a wider amount of space, or allow it to be composted there on site. That's a part of good husbandry, that if you're actually taking care of the excrement, composting it with things like hay or other sorts of material like that, then that cuts down on the smell, which again addresses the issue of peace and quiet, being a good neighbor with these animals. And so composting, any kind of waste like this, whether it be vegetable waste or animal waste like this, is essentially the same kind of thing. You want to be able to care for it in such a manner that it cuts down on the smell. So anybody who has it on their property that's bothering someone else because of the smell, then it becomes a water quality issue and it's something that would need to be addressed and would be probably before it became a water quality issue because you would notice the smell and the Humane Society or, I guess, animal control would be brought in before that time. Does that help? Is that helpful? I think that's good for now. I'm going to keep you on the sign-up sheet for public comment. Okay. Is that good? Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. I have other comments that I'd like to make later. We'll bring you back. Thank you. And I have several other things I would like to point out. And I agree completely with Dr. Blues. If the only goat, well, I actually have known two goats in my life. And they were a very obnoxious creature. Now, whether or not they were small, you know, the pygmy goats, I haven't seen a goat that was huge ever, but the two goats that I did know were very mischievous and loud. And I do agree with Dr. Blues. I have problems in my district with complaints of barking dogs that just goes on and on and on, and the process is broken. It's not being addressed. so I would have a problem with the noise from the goats. Also, in the work group, are there other cities that allow this? Was any research done to see maybe what issues they were faced with? I would defer back to Council Member Kay. We did not do any systematic research. I have anecdotal information that a number of communities around the country have expanded the ability for people to keep these animals, and that, again, anecdotally, they don't seem to be creating any problems. I don't know if Leah, do you have any specifics to add? Leah did most of this work for me. Is there a mic there? Hi, Leah Boggs. I work for Council Member Steve Kegg. We did some research, no systematic research. I did not notice any problems. In fact, some cities have gone to using goats for mowing some of their public right-of-ways. Some had very specific ordinances about lot size and numbers of goats, and some didn't. But I think just even Louisville and Cincinnati have expanded, recently expanded their urban agriculture ordinances. And I have a question, Leah, that you might be able to answer as far as is this on a permit basis? How do we know? So if someone buys a goat, is it complaint-driven? And then if you get a complaint, you go out and they have to be in compliance, just like with? As far as the different cities, it varied. This proposed ordinance does not include a licensing requirement for the goats or pigs. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. That would be all my questions, and I have to say that in its current form, I cannot support this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I had Council Member Martin up earlier and made a missed call, so I will go to Council Member Martin and then come back to Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Chair. I guess I've got some questions I'm trying to work through. Mr. Kaye, is there any set back line for keeping pigs or goats? No. And as I understand, the total number permitted by this ordinance is six goats and two pigs. Is that right? That would be the maximum, yes. Yeah, and that's per lot or per? You would have to have enough space to accommodate the open space and shelter requirements for the animals, but that's the only limiting factor. So each animal is required to have basically 20 square feet, 4 by 5 feet. Is that correct? Is there more space that's required? 20 square feet of three-sided shelter space for goats. And 60 feet. And at least 60 square feet of open space. So each animal. Each animal. So there's a density limitation that's going to... Correct. Yeah. But I guess if my neighbor had the space, they could keep, I guess, two pigs and six goats right next to my property line. And so I guess if I or another resident had a pool or a patio that's somewhat close to that property line, they would be within a matter of feet of whatever it is to the property line, I guess. They could be, yeah. Yeah. Section 411B1 references disturbing the peace and quiet of the people in the neighborhood. And my question is, do you mean any person in the neighborhood, or is there a higher threshold? Who are the people in the neighborhood? It would be, in my understanding of the way the ordinance is written, it would be any person. and as with other aspects of the noise and nuisance ordinance, it would be complaint-driven. So if there were a problem in your adjacent or in your neighborhood or whoever you are, if you notice something, you could then make a complaint. So we're not going to get into an issue about whether or not they live close enough to the offending property or whether they're not really a resident of that neighborhood? No. Because some people obviously aren't in, I guess, they have areas, but it wouldn't be a traditional neighborhood like a suburb. Does this allow pigs and goats to be kept on commercial property? That's a good question. I believe the ordinance is silent about that. It's just about. It's an exclusion from a prohibition. So I think the answer is probably yes. It's not restricted to residential property, is it? I think that's right. So if I wanted to be crafty and subdivide a lot so that we could have basically we could turn center point into a sort of a – that would be actually permitted, though. Actually, the ordinance does not speak to that, but my understanding of the zoning and planning regulations is that you'd have to go before the planning commission with a plan for subdividing that lot, and you would have to explain what you're going to do with it. Right, yeah. But short of access issues, it's really an administrative issue. And so I guess some entrepreneurial individual who wanted to try to maximize this could, I guess, put pigs and goats next to commercial properties or retail properties. So it's not zoning-driven. It's an exception to zoning. Is that right? I'm not sure I understand the question. Well, the main prohibition says it's the keeping of hogs, goats, and pigs within any area except those zone agriculture is prohibited. So the original restriction was to keep farm animals into the agricultural area because that's what an agricultural area is. This is an exception that if you meet the requirements of the proposed statute by certain space limitations and shelter limitations and things like that, you're allowed to have them in non-agricultural places. And so that would be any place in Lexington that's deemed non-agricultural, which would be residential townhouses, condominiums, retail shopping centers. That's right. They'd have to have adequate space, although. Right. There's a space limitation. Yeah. Okay. Did the work group, sorry, I guess let me follow up on that. So they could have pigs and goats at the building that had the old Budleys. So they could put a little pen out there and have pigs and goats right there on Maxwell and Mill Street. Actually, my understanding of that lot is that it's not big enough, but if it were, yes, they could. Well, there's space around the outsides, and you could fence things in. They could have at least a couple, I would guess. Yeah, they could do that. Because 60 square feet is only 6 by 10. that's not that big a space and there's clearly a 6x10 space out there. So in fact you could have quite a few 6x10 spaces out there I would guess. Did your group consider an overlay type district in the style of an ND1 that allowed residents I guess to decide for themselves whether they wanted this type of feature in their neighborhood? We did not. Thank you. Thank you Thank you, sir. Then I have in the second round, first is Council Member Diane Lawless. Well, I hate to admit this, but it goes back to a wintery morning in November of 1951. I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm scared. I grew up, we had a house in the city, but our family, my father was one of 16 kids, had a farm, and we worked it. We had a barnyard. And so I know quite a bit about these said animals. later a friend gave me a vietnamese pot-bellied goat as a pet as a gift unsolicited they are not animals they are animals that people keep as pets and mine lived in the house It was litter trained. There was no odor. They don't make noise unless you pick them up because they don't like to have their feet off the ground. And they are not suitable for slaughter for food because they're not that big. And generally, they're like a dog or a cat. They're a family pet. and they're really, really smart. As far as goats are concerned, if the space is available and we outlaw male goats, which are the ones that generally create an odor, and noise, then my neighbor across the street that lived in the house that Council Member Martin grew up in had full-size pet goats, two of them, in their backyard, and they would take them for walks. They created no problem except when I was trying to sell my house and people come and would see them walking the goats. But I'm not sure that one or two full-size goats, if they are female only, because the male goats are the ones that create an odor, and their excrement is vegetarian, they're vegetarians. and there was a limit, is that a problem? You know, why are we limiting it to pygmy goats? And I also have seen pygmy goats, and they're a little bitty. I mean, they're smaller than a small dog. So I think it needs to be made clear that these pot-bellied miniature pygmy goats are generally family pets. They are not used for slaughter and food. And most people I've known that own them keep them in their homes, and they're litter trained like a cat. I would not be in favor of full-size pigs because they smell really bad and they're outside. Also, you're right, Peggy, goats are quite aggravating when they get out, and that would be an issue. But also there are many, many cities and et cetera that are using goats to clean out brush. And, you know, they can take 10 goats in there and clear out a ton of honeysuckle in a matter of two hours. It might be something Parks looks into. We could keep them on the golf courses. Sorry. But, you know, again, I don't think goats other than male goats who do create an odor and who are most likely to make noise and certainly don't make any more noise than the dogs barking in my neighborhood is, you know, they would have to have obviously more space than a pygmy goat. The big deal is keeping them pinned in because they are very crafty about getting out. And so I just would like to throw that in. And for people to understand that these pot-bellied Vietnamese pygmy pigs are generally household pets, and they are not used for food. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a perfect segue to my first question, which was I had thought that perhaps this was coming forward related to food issues. And I'm going to just give a disclaimer of ignorance about pigs and goats and just say, if you have a female with a neutered male, will that goat give milk? I don't think so, right? They have to be pregnant. I mean, I don't know enough to know, but is this a food issue? I guess my real question is, did this come before you in a discussion as a food issue or a pet issue? That's my first question. And I apologize for my lack of information. Well, if I may. Please, please. I think it came in two ways. And for some people, it is a food issue. And I need to clarify one thing. We've been talking about pygmy goats. But pygmy goats are not referenced in the ordinance, in the proposed ordinance. The reference is the goats, which are no larger than 24 inches at the withers. So that's small goats. They may be more than pygmy. And for purposes of illustration, I don't know if people in the audience can see me, but I measured on my leg. So this is about my knee, about that much. That's 24 inches. So that's the height. That's the height. It's the height restriction so it can be larger. In the conversation about the height restriction, there's an interest in having goats that are slightly larger than that because of the issue of milk. Goats that are slightly larger than that, the breeds that are slightly larger than that, actually give more milk. So you could have one goat slightly larger giving as much milk as four or five smaller or pygmy goats. So for some people, it is an issue. We could not get, because we had been working with animal control and we had talked about the 24-inch limit, we could not get, they were not meeting in time to give us feedback about slightly taller goats. So we stayed with the 24-inch limitation. My understanding is so long as they have been bred at some point, they give milk. And if you need to breed them again, you go and breed them. But you don't need a male to be part of the... In the yard. In the yard. And the males, by ordinance, would be neutered. Thank you. I'm sorry. So you did discuss this as a food issue, not as a pet issue, or both? I think both. I think for some people, especially as Diana said, the miniature or pot-bellied pigs, primarily as pets. Okay. The goats for most people would be milk, but there may be some people who want to raise goats for meat. Okay. And then did the work group have any discussions about whether the cities that, or the communities that make this a conditional use have success going at it that way? In other words, getting permission for conditional use, did you have any discussion based around that? We did not. And again, I can just say anecdotally, I don't know of any place that has approached it that way. What they have done is expanded the capacity to keep those animals within whatever set of zones they have, rather than try to do an overlay. I just would say, for my benefit, it would have been helpful to have some research about what other cities do and have they encountered problems? What problems have they encountered along the way? So anyway, thank you. Thank you. Next is Council Member Doug Martin. Thank you, Chair. I apologize for ringing back in. I think my time had expired on my previous time. Council Member Lawless mentioned that she had trouble selling her house when there were goats across the street, and I think this goes to the heart of my basic concerns about this. I've always said that good government is about balance, and I think that this is all a question of balance. Do the wishes of folks wanting to keep pigs and goats outweigh the wishes of those who don't want to live near pigs and goats? Does keeping pigs and goats outweigh the possible impact on property values and the rights of folks to live in areas that are free from the sights and sounds and smells of farm animals. I think that's the very point of zoning is to segregate uses so that they are compatible with themselves. We separate industrial properties off by themselves, so the noises and smells and sounds of industrial property don't impact residential neighborhoods, at least if it's done correctly anyway. And I know there are places in Lexington where it hasn't been done correctly. And I think the same for agricultural property. I mean, we are an agricultural area. Kentucky is an agricultural state. And so there's nothing wrong with raising pigs and goats. I mean, I lived on 10 acres out in Woodford County for quite a while growing up. And so while we didn't keep animals, I certainly appreciate the sounds and smells and sights of living in the country. but if my neighbor were to put six and i like my neighbor by the way but if one of my neighbors were to put six goats and two pigs right next to my patio i can tell you i would not be happy with that and because barnyard animals make sounds and they make noise and they're smelly and we can wash them all we want but but they are not uh domesticated animals and so i have heard from a flood of people who don't want this it is i've never had in four years of being on the urban county council more emails about any topic that i can remember i don't think even the tates creek sidewalk generated this many emails. And so I have concerns about this. I think I might not object, at least I don't think so, to having something like an ND1 overlay where a neighborhood could elect to allow farmed animals in their area. And it would be a choice of the neighbors deciding for themselves what their area would want to be. And I guess I could see something like that. But this, in essence, imposes an agricultural overlay over the entire city of Lexington. Commercial, retail, condominiums, residential. And folks would be essentially made to accommodate a small segment of the community who wanted to keep these types of animals. And I don't think there's a reasonable expectation that they thought they could because it's prevented by our ordinances. And so the question is, on balance, should they? And I don't think that, in my mind, the rights or the wishes of the small group that wants to keep pigs and goats outweighs the expectations of neighbors that they'll be able to sell their house, particularly in an economy like this, or that they would live in an area that is free from barn animals. And I think our ordinances, as they've been set up, create an expectation that if I'm going to live out in a suburb someplace or even in a downtown area that is residential, that they would not be living next to barnyard animals. And so I think that, you know, I appreciate that we must move toward a more sustainable lifestyle than we have. But I think we have to remember the balance of competing interests. At least in my mind, I think that this does not outweigh the rights of folks to not live next to six goats and two pigs. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your comments. In looking at the list, I have three council members who have all spoken twice and one who has spoken once. I'm going to defer to the one who has spoken once and go to Council Member Julian Beard. As probably you all have figured out, this is a work in progress as we go along. I think the first thing which Council Member Lawless pointed out, and I guess I anticipated all along, was that we weren't going to just open the door to pigs in general. We were going to open the door only to pot-bellied pigs. And we discussed pigs in general, and there's a big difference, several hundred pounds difference between a pot-bellied pig and an honest-to-goodness farmyard, barnyard type of a pig. I guess the other thing is, is that it doesn't necessarily, in my mind, mean that we have to have sick goats. We can change that number to four or two or some other number, which should allay some people's issues that they might have with the goat situation. now and we'll get an opportunity to hear about this I think one of our speakers in the audience but the larger the goat essentially in certain breeds of goats produce more milk than a pygmy does a pygmy goat does and obviously they want for whatever reason whether it be for home consumption or whether they want to use it to sell goat cheese at the farmer's market. They want to be able to have the ability to create enough goat cheese to make it profitable for them. Just home consumption alone, I don't think, would be the only reason. but in my mind all of these things are adjustable to make it more palatable to be able to handle essentially these two animal types the pot-bellied pig and goats of one size or another and maybe It's possible that we know the pygmy goats do not give enough milk to make it worthwhile, but we also don't have to have a four-foot high at the weather goat either. There's a happy medium in here that might be more palatable to everybody, so let's not just paint ourselves into a corner in our own minds and in the public's minds as to where we're going with this. We're going to try to be accommodating at least to the point where we can then have a reasonable vote and everybody is going to be somewhat pleased with the results or not. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I'm again going to defer now to Council Member Henson, who I think has only spoken once. Have you spoken twice already? I thought you spoke twice. Two or three times. I'm still going to go to Councilmember Henson. Councilmember Henson. Henson. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. I guess I would just like to just one quick comment is that I think that there are responsible owners out there that want to provide for their families a fresh dairy products and meat or whatever, and I applaud them completely. But the thing that bothers me about this ordinance is it's wide open to anyone, and I could see a lot of abuse, a lot of people not being responsible, and it may not be of an interest, but I just agree with a lot of the comments Council Member Martin said. If the lot size, depending upon the lot size, the location, so forth, I think there would be a lot of factors that could come into play that would make it an appropriate place for livestock. but we all know that the most recent developments in Lexington, the yardage is not very big and this would apply to our entire city and there are a lot of folks out there that are not responsible when it comes to their properties, their pets and so forth So, you know, I would just have this fear of what it could come to without some sort of other plan in place that would allow the responsible folks to have these animals. So thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some concerns about the proposed ordinance, and certainly the one that Vice Mayor Gorton articulated is primary in my mind. That is, I had assumed that this ordinance had mainly to do with the urban agriculture movement, but it seems that that's not entirely the case. And I think that that issue needs further discussion. It does seem to me, too, that if we're considering legislation on the keeping of animals, livestock animals in particular, that since we do know that increasing numbers of people are keeping chickens for eggs and for meat, we ought to make sure also that we're providing proper regulations on shelter, on space, noise, and so forth, if we can do that. There are other issues as well that have been articulated here. And so I do not think that this is ready to go forward to the full council. And I would hope that we can keep it in committee and to continue to study the issue until we have a product here that we can confidently move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But no motion. You made no motion. Well, I had hoped that the primary sponsor of the ordinance would do that, but I'll be happy to make a motion. We've got two more people. We haven't heard from the public yet, either, and I think we should probably do that. But, of course, that would require a third time to speak, Mr. Chairman. You might be correct. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, and I'll make this quick. I was joking about the goats being walked while people were trying to buy my house. They were never any issue at all in our neighborhood. I don't have a goat or a pig in this fight. But I will say I do not see the purpose of having male goats who are neutered because male goats do emit an odor if they are neutered or not because they urinate in their beards. And it stinks really badly. and a female goat, just like a cow or a human, only needs to be pregnant once to produce milk forever as long as they're milked. So I also would suggest that if there are breeds of goats that produce more milk that may be of a different size, and that is the purpose that we look at allowing one goat that makes a lot of milk rather than goats that don't make enough. The other, very quickly, I too have been flooded with a lot of emails about this, And I think the public needs to understand that we didn't just come up with this because we didn't have anything else to do. But as we found out about the horse that fortunately was not in my district running loose, we found that these things weren't really being regulated. And so we are trying to regulate. We are trying to put something in ordinance to give neighbors recourse if there are problems, because currently there's nothing to prevent many of these things. So we're not just trying to find something to do. So I think maybe further study on what breeds of goats and their size make the best and most milk, and maybe one or two of those would be better than six that don't make much milk. So that's my two cents, and I certainly agree with Council Member Martin that there needs to be some setback from the property line so that the goats aren't right next to your patio or pool. and saying that maybe this needs just a little bit more work. But I know that there are many cities that do allow these, and so that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. One very specific response and then a couple of general comments. On the question of chickens, which seem to be rearing their heads, There is a separate section of the ordinances that deals with chickens and what you can and cannot do with chickens, and it prohibits, as I understand it, roosters. So there already is, in another part of the ordinance, language that talks about chickens. On the noise question, we've heard that the potbelly and miniature pigs are pretty quiet animals. My understanding is that it goes for the most part, especially if they're smaller, acquired animals. And I think it's a question of relative scale. If people don't know this, what they do need to know is that there are roughly 40,000 licensed dogs within Fayette County that bark at one time or another. There's probably another who knows how many that are not licensed that also bark. and that presents an enforcement issue. It's hard for me to imagine that we would ever have more than, pick a number, 100, 200? We don't know. That's right. It could be that we'll end up with 40,000 goats. I expect that that's not going to be what happens. So I think the question of enforcement is at a much lower level than the question of the barking dog issue. but I agree with a lot of sentiment that's been expressed people are not comfortable with the way in which the ordinance has been drafted I do want to hear from people who have come to speak before we close this issue but I believe it's a question of whether we believe in fact that this will have a significant negative impact on anybody in the community and I believe that it will not that we have adequate protections in place that will be a small enforcement issue, if at all, and that that's what we're basically weighing, allowing some people to do something that they believe will improve their life against the question of whether, in fact, what they do will have a negative impact on somebody else at some point. So having said that, Mr. Chair, if we can open it to the floor. Yeah, okay. I would be pleased to do that after Council Member, after Vice Mayor Gorton's question. Just a quick question. Since this may go back for more work, I don't know, but did your work group hear from anyone in ag at UK? Because they have some pretty good educated experts there about, you know, different size animals, impact, et cetera. Have you heard from them? I just was curious. I think they could give a lot of information and help work through some of these issues for us. Okay, so I think it's fair to say that there were some informal conversations with people at the university, but they were not asked to provide information to the subcommittee. We could do a much more elaborated version of this conversation. Thank you. There are five members of the public who have signed up to speak. I would ask you to come to the microphone here if you would. We have a three-minute limit on your conversation points. First is Juanita Gallivan of Paines Mill Road. Yes, it's you. I had been asked by Cindy Meyer to read e-mail that in response to Mr. K, who had written to her. A lot of this, and I don't want to repeat it, but a lot does need to be repeated. I just need to tell you, you've got three minutes, so capsulate. Oh, Anita Gallivan from Lexington, from Cindy Meyer from Lexington. We, Mr. Martin and Ms. Henson, so appreciate your concerns. So, realistic concerns. Boy, I wish you folks took as much time to think about reducing my property tax. How about that one? But anyhow, the health issue Cindy is quite concerned with, and Mr. K. had said that, you know, the size requirements. And she says two pigs the size of human beings in someone's backyard is no small health concern. And she says she sees no stipulations regarding the disposal of waste, as you all have talked to. And from what I can gather, you've come to no conclusion. It does rain. These pigs do whatever on the ground and the grass, and it is the possibility of going into our sewer systems. Where is the health department on this issue? Have they been contacted? And now Mr. Kay says, so please answer that for us people. Goats are allowed only if they meet a list of requirements and conditions. Well, the proposed size of the animal and required living space does nothing to alleviate my concerns of humane husbandry within the urban environment. 480 square feet for six large feeding animals is far less than ideal. Where is PETA on this? What special enclosure will be required to maintain goats with the allotted space? Goats jump? Goats bleat? Goats are an absolute nuisance. They're absolutely darling until you have to deal with them. And I don't want next to my home that I have spent my entire life working, continuing to work after I have retired, to keep it maintained so that perhaps I can sell it when the time comes that I have to go to a retirement home. But anyhow, and Mr. K says the ordinance provides protection for the neighbors from noise and odor. Are you going to put a little halter on the goats to keep them from bleeding? Are you going to tie their legs to keep them from jumping over someone's fence? And how do you anticipate, since you already don't know how many people are going to do this? has animal control caught that little dog who's diseased in Cardinal Valley, been lost six weeks? Well, what about a group of little goats walking down the road pestering people? But anyhow, we don't even have enough money to watch out for the dogs that are a nuisance. And I love dogs, love animals, love goats, love chickens, roosters, whatever. I grew up in the country. But the city is not the place, and it is not the place to devalue my property. Thank you. And I see so many wonderful, familiar faces. I hope they're friendly faces. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Laura Doth-Demartinez of Big Bear Lane. Thank you all for your time today. I just want to say I'm representing the Bluegrass Goat Justice League. We have over 100 members. Those are people that are locally in this area that are interested in this issue. We're also circulating a petition that has a good number of signatures that are people that support. Not everybody wants goats, but there are a lot of people that support others that do want to have goats. There's been a lot of stuff that's come up. I appreciate Mrs. Juanita's comments, but I do need to say that I feel a lot of what she mentions is reactionary and uninformed. just to give you some statistics the population of Lexington is 295,000 people the population of Seattle, Washington is over 3 million goats are allowed in Seattle, Washington they've been allowed for the last, I think, approximately 7 years there has not been an issue there in Charlottesville, West Virginia, goats have been allowed for 2 years they have a total of 9 goats and just this week there was something published in the Seville Seville.com, it's an online article saying that the goats have been a wonderful, wonderful neighborhood builder. The children are allowed to come and see the animals. There's not been an issue, but our purpose is the legalization of these animals. We consider them pets with benefits. They're friendly, they're curious, their antics are hilarious. they oftentimes can make noise. You know, ironically, keeping two goats is better than one because they're highly social animals. They will bleat because they're lonely. So when you have two animals that are bonded together, their noise is significantly less. And they don't bark at every stray cat that walks by, at every person that they don't know, because they're not predatory animals. They're prey-type animals. When they're confronted with an unfamiliar situation, they seek to be quiet, not alert their presence and scare off what's around. So we would like to have goats legalized. We are really aware of the neighborhood issue. We want this to be a positive experience for the owners and the neighbors and the goats. And we've come to the committee and the work group suggesting many things. The things about the limit and the size requirement were things that we suggested. I would like to comment on Dine Lawless. Everything that I've come across says that weathers, the neutered animals, are not smelly. And it is a male reproductive issue. So if they are unneutered, they will be smelly. And that's, again, something that's restricted. There are no intact bucks allowed in these cities that I've come across that allow goats. And that is Seattle, Washington, Charlottesville, Virginia, St. Paul, Minnesota, just to name a few off the top of my head. Which are, you know, Charlottesville is smaller, but these other two are significantly larger than Lexington, and they have not had a problem having goats in the city. So, and one thing I'd like to mention to Mr. Martin, Councilman Martin, is those that are pushing for goats in the city are not people that are seeking to make a business out of it. We want them in our backyard for weed control, for the companionship, and for milk for our families. We're not into it to make business. And having the density requirement, I think, significantly limits what would be allowed in neighborhoods. And so I think that's all I can think of right now. Thank you. I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Next, I have Donna Martinez of Big Bear Lane. Oops, sorry. Sorry. There you go. Why I want goats in the city is because they're cute and I like goat milk a lot sometimes and I like to drink goat milk and they're cute, really cute. And I can't think of anything else that I can say. Thank you very much. Next is Dayan Doth, also of Big Bear Lane. Good afternoon. Hi. Welcome. The reason why I want goats in Kentucky is because they're cute and they use poison ivy. And I like goat milk, but not the ones in the store because goat milk is fresher and it's better. And they're also really cute, and they're fun to have as pets. And that's all I have. You've done a great job. Thank you. Thank you very much. And last, Mr. Jeremy Porter of, I believe, Bryant Road. And you'll have three minutes also, sir. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Hi, Jeremy Porter from Bryan Avenue. Sorry. Yeah, no worries. And thank you for having patience with my two-year-old son and I in the back. We've had a good time back there while listening also. As I mentioned, I am with Seedleaf and Cluck. The CLUCK is the urban chicken keeping group here in Lexington. At the end of May, we had a tour of 13 coops in Fayette County, all in Fayette County, and had over 400 people on this tour over the course of five hours. It was a really exciting event. It was something that folks turned out in droves, and most of the folks who were on that tour were either looking toward or already have chickens in their backyard. Now, I guess about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, an ordinance came under consideration before, I believe it was Planning and Public Works, this committee, about the slaughtering of animals. And I stood here at this podium and I said, I really think part of the concern was that folks were doing it in such a way as not to be neighborly, essentially not taking into account the folks that were around them. And so it was put into place, this ordinance, to consider neighbors. Chickens have actually, in my perspective from the conversations that I have, both with chicken keepers and with the folks who live around them, is that they make people better neighbors. And they make better neighbors of other people. Now, I recognize a lot of the concerns that have been mentioned. And Council Member Martin, when I went to have my house refinanced, they would not allow me to have it refinanced because I had chickens on my property. So I had to find another company to refinance my home. And so I recognize that that is a valid and a legitimate concern. One minute, I guess. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. I recognize that smell is a legitimate concern. Noise is a legitimate concern. putting a burden on our police force, on animal control. But these are all concerns. I will say that I believe that as the ordinance has been drafted, that at the very least the smell and the noise have been answered because you have space regulations and requirements, and you have essentially the noise part of the ordinance, so that if any neighbor complains, then it becomes a husbandry issue. This takes care of water quality if folks notice any smell. It takes care of neighborliness or things getting into other people's yards. Again, good husbandry is a part of it. We didn't regulate chickens in this way because folks are taking good care of their chickens and making it available in taking good care so that it's not a burden on animal control. So I hope that we can see the same thing for goats and for pot-bellied pigs. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have heard from the members of the public and several members of the council have spoken. At this point, we'd be open for any motions on this issue. Council Member Beer. I would like to move that we keep this in committee for another shot at attempting to come up with something that is going to be acceptable to the public and to ourselves and animal control and all of the above. I was sitting here thinking about the urban farming issue, and everybody may think that's okay, but I wonder how they'd feel if their next-door neighbors threw up 10 rows of corn and some pole beans in their front yard as opposed to their backyard. I imagine we'd have an uprising immediately about how that's handled and we'd have to go to, I guess, the Board of Adjustment for any continuation of something of that sort. This thing is so complex and there's so many moving parts that this may be in committee for some period of time, but I would like to move that we keep it in committee and see if we can do better. So yours is a motion and a second by Council Member Lawless to keep this issue in committee for further cultivation. All those in favor? Are there any comments on this? All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, like sign? No. We had one no. The rest were yeses. This will remain in committee. I'm sorry? We had two no's. All right. Two no's to keeping it in committee. The rest, two keep it, and we will address it as soon as we can make policy. We had a no from Council Member Martin and a no from Council Member Ellinger. All right. That completes our work on that issue here today, bringing us to the second item on our agenda, which is the design excellence update. And I would turn to Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, but I hope we'll be able to inform the committee on the progress of our work in the Design Excellence Task Force since we reported out to the committee on January 24th of this year. Since that time, the task force has met twice in March and again in May. the staff group of the task force has met almost every week on various aspects of our job. As you know, since the appointments of Jeff Fugate as executive director of the Downtown Development Authority Authority, and of Derek Paulson, the Commissioner of Planning, Preservation, and Development. They have both joined the task force, and in recent weeks, Vice Mayor Gordon has appointed three other new members who have strengthened our group. They are Mike Moiser, who is the chair of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, Professor and Ned Crankshaw, who chairs the UK Department of Landscape Architecture, and Mr. John Rohwer, who is the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Some of the significant developments since our earlier report, as you know, Mayor Gray included in his proposed budget $50,000, That would be for the Commissioner of Planning's budget, but specifically earmarked for the engaging of a consultant to write design guidelines and draft-related ordinances governing the downtown core. We have selected as our focus area mainly the current B2 zones. The basic concept is to take the courthouse area overlay zone and use that as a kind of pattern for the larger central downtown as the area of working toward design guidelines for the area. As you know, there have been a number of studies and plans and regulatory documents focusing on downtown over recent years. the downtown master plan, to name one, the courthouse area design guidelines, the downtown Lexington building inventory. And as a task force, we determined that we could take advantage of these documents and a considerable body of in-house and task force members' expertise to support and coordinate with a consultant's development of design guidelines. And to that end, we have created several task force subgroups that over the next several weeks and months will do the following things. things. One group will conduct a detailed inventory and analysis of the aforementioned B2 zones in the downtown area, with a particular view to defining, what shall I say, sub-districts as characterized by certain identifiable and compatible features. Another group will undertake to review and analyze our current courthouse area design guidelines to assess their strengths, their weaknesses, their omissions. And the results of this analysis will inform the creation of guidelines for the larger target area. Yet another group will recommend the selection of a consultant, and the consultant's work will involve the drafting, or the group's work will involve the drafting and publishing of an RFQ and the evaluation of responses. We do hope to have a consultant on board by early fall. Further on in the process, a fourth group will begin drafting zoning text amendments and administrative permitting procedures which will necessarily accompany any new design guidelines for downtown. We have set a fairly aggressive summer and fall work schedule, and if I may be permitted to provide a next update at our November meeting, I hope to be able to report that working with our consultant, We will have drafted and can share with the committee, number one, a set of design guidelines for a specifically defined downtown area. Number two, the staff and review board procedures and parameters. And third, accompanying zone ordinance task amendments for the planning committee's consideration and advice. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have on our work and our progress at this time. Two members of the task force, two key members of the task force, are here this afternoon. Brandy Barrowman from the Downtown Development Authority, who is heading the group that will do the into the weeds inventory of the downtown B2 zones, and Billy Van Pelt, the staff officer for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, his group will be involved in the drafting of an RFQ and the selection process of a consultant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, sir, for that update. We appreciate it very much. And we have Council Member Doug Martin with a question. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Dr. Blues. I just want to follow up one more time. I've asked this before, I'm going to ask it again. Will the recommendations from the task force bring forward new rules and restrictions on demolition? Because the problem with the center point block is that it is still legal to tear down a whole city block. This was reviewed by a judge, and it complied with the legal requirements. So I think this is a fundamental threshold issue in things not just downtown, but throughout Lexington. I couldn't agree with you more. The answer is yes. Thank you, Chair. Other questions about the update? Thank you again for the update. We look forward to the follow-up in November. I know we've all been invited to spend a few moments with the senior intern program, which will be between now and our 3 o'clock meeting. I would forego going over the issues list until our next month, unless there's something specific someone wanted to bring up. Second. Motion to adjourn in a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you very much. Thank you.