Council directs attorney to revise animal ordinance after proposal to keep two Highland cows as small agritourism business
June 22, 2026 | Washington, Daviess County, Indiana
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A majority of the Washington Common Council voted Tuesday to direct the city attorney to draft changes to the city’s animal ordinance to allow the council more flexibility to grant conditional uses for livestock on non-agricultural parcels.
The council took up the matter after a property owner requested permission to keep two Highland cows on a little more than four acres behind their home on Eastside Parkway and to run an appointment-only educational/agr i tourism experience. Planning staff and the zoning board chairman told the council that the present animal ordinance generally limits livestock to property zoned agricultural, with narrow exceptions and grandfathering only when past livestock keeping had never ceased.
The planning commission member explained that the applicant had received permission from the board of zoning to operate a home-based business but that the animal portion falls under the animal ordinance and therefore returned to the council. The zoning board chairman and city attorney said the ordinance language is ambiguous in parts and that some sections written in 2022 make it difficult to permit new livestock in city limits unless the property is zoned agricultural.
Council members asked detailed questions about zoning classifications (R-1 and S-1 were discussed), setbacks, and the practical impacts on animal control response. One council member urged caution about creating a broad path to rezone or otherwise allow large-scale livestock inside residential areas; others said a narrowly written conditional-use option (for small operations with setbacks and limits) could allow small educational uses without opening the city to widespread livestock.
Councilman Brown moved to instruct the city attorney to prepare revised ordinance language that would provide the council an explicit option to approve conditional uses on a case-by-case basis. The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. The council asked that the city attorney coordinate with council members and planning staff when drafting changes.
The council did not adopt any ordinance text at the meeting; the direction was to have revised language prepared for future consideration.
The council took up the matter after a property owner requested permission to keep two Highland cows on a little more than four acres behind their home on Eastside Parkway and to run an appointment-only educational/agr i tourism experience. Planning staff and the zoning board chairman told the council that the present animal ordinance generally limits livestock to property zoned agricultural, with narrow exceptions and grandfathering only when past livestock keeping had never ceased.
The planning commission member explained that the applicant had received permission from the board of zoning to operate a home-based business but that the animal portion falls under the animal ordinance and therefore returned to the council. The zoning board chairman and city attorney said the ordinance language is ambiguous in parts and that some sections written in 2022 make it difficult to permit new livestock in city limits unless the property is zoned agricultural.
Council members asked detailed questions about zoning classifications (R-1 and S-1 were discussed), setbacks, and the practical impacts on animal control response. One council member urged caution about creating a broad path to rezone or otherwise allow large-scale livestock inside residential areas; others said a narrowly written conditional-use option (for small operations with setbacks and limits) could allow small educational uses without opening the city to widespread livestock.
Councilman Brown moved to instruct the city attorney to prepare revised ordinance language that would provide the council an explicit option to approve conditional uses on a case-by-case basis. The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. The council asked that the city attorney coordinate with council members and planning staff when drafting changes.
The council did not adopt any ordinance text at the meeting; the direction was to have revised language prepared for future consideration.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
