The North Port City Commission, minus Commissioner Tom Jones, met on Earth Day (April 22nd, 2013) and the agenda included the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would allow backyard chickens in single family residential areas.
After fourteen open-to-the-public comments (that included testimony from four former City Commissioners!), the commission took up Ordinance 1013-03. Staff introduced the measure pointing out that it differed from the City of Sarasota approach by allowing more chickens (six instead of four) and restricting chickens in North Port to single family residential areas while Sarasota allowed chickens in "all residential areas".1
Mayor Yates, a known supporter, started the conversation asking where the inspections and permits came from since they were not in the City of Sarasota ordinance. The answer was that they were recommended by the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. 2
The Mayor wanted to make sure that the prohibition on egg sales did not apply City-wide where if could affect Farmer's Markets.
Commissioner Blucher questioned six, not four and wondered if the permitting would necessitate adding staff.
Commissioner Cook seemed disappointed in staff responses to PZAB concerns.
Commissioner DiFranco asked about the current staffing levels of code enforcement and animal services.
Mayor Yates pointed out that no permit was needed in Sarasota and people could have dog houses, bird cages, potbellied pigs, and parrots in North Port without getting a permit. Commissioner Blucher countered that a there was no North Port permit for a goat either (because goats are illegal).
The Commission then took testimony from the public, which ran about three to one in favor of chickens. Those arguing in opposition tended to use two lines of argument, enforcement challenges and property rights, although there was one individual who cited bird flu in China as a reason not to act. The majority of those speaking in opposition were adamant that chickens are "farm animals" and not pets.3 Planning Commissioner Maturo earned a rebuke from the Mayor when he rudely began to attack the testimony of an earlier speaker.
Former Commissioner and current PZAB member Fred Tower testified that he was neither for nor against, but that he had talked to a relative in Oshkosh and there all three neighbors had to give approval.
At the close of public testimony, Mayor Yates passed the gavel to Commissioner Blucher and added language prohibiting sale of eggs "at a residence". She argued that "all had been said" and the City should give it a try because it was working well in Sarasota.
Commissioner DiFranco offered a balanced response, noting that chickens are a lot of responsibility and that she feared chickens would be abandoned after the novelty wore off. She was concerned about enforcement and stated she couldn't support six.
Commissioner Cook revealed she had a chicken as a child, but that not all chickens were docile. She went back to the list of PZAB concerns that she felt had not be adequately addressed by staff.
Commissioner Blucher stated that he had problems with this proposal from day one. He enumerated a number of concerns including staff needed to enforce, six chickens being too many, and the fact that North Port, unlike the City of Sarasota, already had an area (the Estates) that allowed chickens. But he tempered his comments with an observation that he wasn't worried about noise and thought it would be a good thing for kids.
Since Commissioner Jones was absent, passage would require 75% of those present to vote in favor (more than the usual 60%) and it was pretty clear six chickens weren't going anywhere.
Mayor Yates tried to amend to four chickens, but there was a parliamentary question. That got sorted out yielding an amendment to reduce the number from 6 to 4 and requiring approval from neighbors. Commissioner Cook stated she was still not on board, citing the cost to regulate and the possibility that chicken droppings could contaminate wells. Staff was empowered to iron out details prior to the second reading on May 13th at 1:00 pm and both the amendment and main motion passed three to one with Commissioner Cook voting Nay.
1 That turned out not to be true. The City of Sarasota clearly states chickens are "accessory to a residential single-family structure".
2 Actually a PZAB member at the April 4th meeting asked staff if permits would be required, and a staff member answered in the affirmative. That was the start of permitting being added.
3 That argument suffered a serious blow later in the Board discussion when Commissioner DiFranco revealed that she owned a "pet chicken".
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
CLUCK's Greatest Hits -- the Top Twenty Postings on Local Backyard Chickens
With over 100 Sarasota CLUCK blog postings, you're probably wondering how does one find the best, the most crucial, postings and skip all the humor, self-congratulatory reporting, meeting announcements, and accounts from other places? This posting provides one click access to the top twenty postings regarding Sarasota's backyard chicken topics. Just click and go.
Trial period
Please take a few seconds to take the poll in the upper right and tell us where you live.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Three Proposals CLUCK is NOT Supporting
The proposed revisions to the City Code making it possible for people to once again have a few chickens have gone through several changes, and CLUCK, in response to concerns raised, has proposed additional changes dealing with odor, setbacks, sale of eggs and other topics.
But three of the suggestions that have surfaced are not acceptable. Here they are and here's why:
REFERENDUM: Rumor has it at least one group says they will be calling for a referendum on chickens. Really? We get to vote on small fluffy pets, but not the FPL 30 year contract? Not on ball stadium funding, but birds?
It has been hard enough for an all-volunteer citizen group to mount an ambitious campaign to inform decision-makers, citizen leaders and the media. But, aside from the cost of a referendum itself, asking a citizen group to find the funds to mount a political campaign (for OR against) while we are paying Commissioners to analyze the situation and make decisions for us is a misallocation of resources.
This is a decision the Commission is completely capable of making on its own. CLUCK has been working on this for year and a half and that should be long enough for the City to make a decision without further delay and major expense.
It has been hard enough for an all-volunteer citizen group to mount an ambitious campaign to inform decision-makers, citizen leaders and the media. But, aside from the cost of a referendum itself, asking a citizen group to find the funds to mount a political campaign (for OR against) while we are paying Commissioners to analyze the situation and make decisions for us is a misallocation of resources.
This is a decision the Commission is completely capable of making on its own. CLUCK has been working on this for year and a half and that should be long enough for the City to make a decision without further delay and major expense.
NEIGHBOR VETO Some are calling for a provision that would require neighbor approval before you could have chickens. Really? So your neighbor could put up a fence or cut down a tree that shades your lot without your approval, but they get to decide what pets you can have? Or someone can come into your neighborhood and, if they get a rezoning, completely change the land use next to you and you don't get a veto, but if they wanted to have a few hens, you could nix that? Really?
If the City wants to explore neighbor veto, a major policy change, they should make that a proposal and then we can argue about what is in and what is out. But any major shift in doctrine of this magnitude should be fully discussed and not hidden in a piece of animal regulation.
If the City wants to explore neighbor veto, a major policy change, they should make that a proposal and then we can argue about what is in and what is out. But any major shift in doctrine of this magnitude should be fully discussed and not hidden in a piece of animal regulation.
RIGHT OF INSPECTION Code enforcement is hampered by the fact that, at least on homesteaded properties, inspectors don't have the right to come look all around your property. If you neighbor has four rusting junker cars in the backyard behind a fence, code enforcement may not be able to get in there to confirm and take action. Could be, but this is the status of the law today and making adjustments in private property rights (or way or the other) demands careful consideration.
Now some think we should include a right of inspection for chickens. Again this is a major policy issue that involves private property rights. If the City wants to marshal some attorneys to figure out how to broaden inspectors ability to look around -- fine, let's have that discussion. But trying to insert this significant change in chicken language is not the way to go about it and could lead to bizarre situations like the right check on chickens, but not a junkyard.
Bottom Line: CLUCK has listened to all the testimony, read all the letters to the Editor, and paid attention at neighborhood meetings. As a result CLUCK has proposed numerous changes in response to concerns. But CLUCK is not interested in escalating this relatively simple matter to referendum status.
And if the City engages in a broad community discussion about allowing neighbors to veto your activities or changing your rights relative to code enforcement and the results of that broad policy shift affect backyard chickens, so be it. But using a an animal ordinance as a backdoor assault on property rights is not appropriate, and needs to be labeled as such.
Now some think we should include a right of inspection for chickens. Again this is a major policy issue that involves private property rights. If the City wants to marshal some attorneys to figure out how to broaden inspectors ability to look around -- fine, let's have that discussion. But trying to insert this significant change in chicken language is not the way to go about it and could lead to bizarre situations like the right check on chickens, but not a junkyard.
Bottom Line: CLUCK has listened to all the testimony, read all the letters to the Editor, and paid attention at neighborhood meetings. As a result CLUCK has proposed numerous changes in response to concerns. But CLUCK is not interested in escalating this relatively simple matter to referendum status.
And if the City engages in a broad community discussion about allowing neighbors to veto your activities or changing your rights relative to code enforcement and the results of that broad policy shift affect backyard chickens, so be it. But using a an animal ordinance as a backdoor assault on property rights is not appropriate, and needs to be labeled as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)