LeftColumnBK

York Planning Comm. Hears from Chicken Keepers, Oyster Farmers

Chicken owners and oyster farmers made a stand at the York County Planning Commission meeting Wednesday night, telling the commissioners the proposed zoning changes under discussion would be too restrictive for current and future chicken keepers as well as residents who want to grow oysters.

More than two dozen residents voiced concern about the proposed changes, which commissioners may recommend to the Board of Supervisors but not before they divide into two subgroups to consider backyard chicken flocks and oyster farming.

 

After a four-hour public hearing, commissioners agreed to hold off making certain recommendations to the supervisors until they’ve met in two different committees to discuss aquaculture and chicken keeping. The commissioners will invite three citizens – with at least one a resident expert - to join them. Commissioners Melissa Magowan, Richard Myer and Alexander Hamilton will make up the chicken committee, while Commissioners Christopher Abel, Mario Buffa, Sean Fisher and Mark Suiter will discuss aquaculture.

During the public hearing, Carol Bartram, a member of the Peninsula Chicken Keepers (PeCK), told the commissioners the PeCK members appreciated the opportunity to speak with the York County planners when they were drafting the proposed changes this spring, but the current proposal “is considerably more restrictive than necessary.”

“Many of our 90 members live in York County, but are unable to raise small flocks legally because of their zoning category,” Bartram said. “You should have the right to grow your own food.”

The concerned citizens had issues with multiple regulations proposed, primarily the standards for chicken keeping as an accessory activity on a residential property.

According to the standards the staff proposed, based on discussions with the board and citizens, domestic chicken owners would have to have a lot size that is at least 20,000 square feet, no more than four chickens on property smaller than an acre, and abide by restrictions on how they house the birds. Along with these requirements, staff recommended removing agriculture as a permitted use in the rural conservation (generally, residential parcels of five or more acres) and rural residential (generally, at least an acre for a residential lot) districts, and requiring chicken owners who want to sell their eggs or chickens to apply for a special use permit.

Assistant York County Administrator Mark Carter said the proposed changes would restrict agriculture and aquaculture in York County, but residents – the majority of whom do not use their land for agricultural purposes - were considered when drafting the amendments.

“The purpose of the changes are two-fold,” Carter said. “It recognizes that the [residents in] our districts have changed and recognizes the state legislature's view on aquaculture and agriculture.”

The General Assembly considered this spring a bill sponsored by State Sen. Tommy Norment that would bar localities from restricting shellfish aquaculture operations. It failed to make it out of committee, but got the attention of York supervisors, who bristled at the prospect of no longer being able to decide under what conditions - if any - a home-based business (including oyster farming) can operate.

Delegate Brenda Pogge, who represents parts of James City County, York County and Newport News, spoke during the hearing on what she called the proposal’s confusing language and the number of regulations the county is trying to enforce.

“The theme of the General Assembly last year was to cut back on regulation, but what I’m seeing here is more regulations,” Pogge said. “I can’t believe we are having this discussion in York County.”

She also mentioned that the proposed regulations conflict with the ordinances set in the Virginia Right to Farm Act, a point noted in the staff report, which says the recommended changes would still allow agriculture by right in limited industrial and general industrial districts.

The Virginia Right to Farm act was passed in 1995, saying “…no county shall adopt any ordinance that requires a special exception or special use permit be obtained for any production agriculture or silviculture activity in an area that is zoned as an agricultural district or classification.” The act did give localities permission to adopt setback requirements, minimum area requirements, and other requirements that apply to land that is zoned as an agricultural district.

The proposed regulation that Pogge called into question will also restrict aquaculture (underwater farming of oysters, crabs, grasses and the like) from taking place in residential areas. It was a controversial topic in February when Senator Tommy Norment proposed a bill that would place aquaculture under the Right to Farm Act. Read about that bill by clicking here.

York County Realtor Greg Garrett, who wants to grow oysters in the water around his Dandy home, echoed Pogge’s message, saying there needs to be less regulation in government.

“I’m still trying to figure out how oysters and chickens have become such a problem,” Garrett said. “Trucks, smell, noise - let's regulate the real problem. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

David Turney, president of the Tidewater Oyster Gardeners Association, said he did not understand the current relationship between homeowners and oyster farmers.

“Oyster farming is good for jobs, the economy and the Chesapeake Bay,” Turney said. A number of the citizens who spoke during the public hearing reinforced his opinion, adding that many people originally moved to the area to be watermen.

During the five-hour meeting the commissioners listened to the residents' concerns, then discussed and modified most of the 23 zoning amendments for approval by the Board of Supervisors. They deferred the controversial amendments until the next meeting on Nov. 9.

Still under discussion are proposals to restrict docking workboats and off-loading seafood in rural residential and rural conservation districts; delete aquaculture as a permitted use in rural conservation district; delete agriculture as a permitted use in the rural conservation and rural residential districts; and examine the standards for backyard chicken keeping.

Watch Wednesday night's meeting by clicking here. See the issues that were under discussion by clicking here and the full staff report by clicking here.

Comments  

 
+4 #3 Thomas Nelson, Jr. 2011-10-14 11:30
I watched the session on television and was so pleased to see citizens speak their hearts and minds over their objections to 'big' government. There is still the Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting who provide the final say on many of the issues. Thank goodness the massive increase in permit fees was put on hold and many others issues. I assume none of the Planning Committee or BOS have chickens in their back yards or raise oysters. They now have some feedback to chew on.
Quote
 
 
+4 #2 Milissa 2011-10-14 09:41
I live in James City County in an area that doesn't allow backyard chickens allow backyard chickens.

I should have the right to grow my own food!
Quote
 
 
+5 #1 Oyster Man 2011-10-14 08:23
What a great night for the citizens of York County! A clear demonstration of what happens when folks show up at public hearings and express their opinions. The York County staff representative did not respond to the question of why these changes were being proffered. The timing seems suspiciously close to the recent re-election of the incumbent county supervisors.
Quote
 

Add comment

WYDaily invites you to join the community conversation. We expect civil discourse here. Personal attacks on others, indecent language and bad manners in general are unwelcome.


Security code
Refresh

Talk of the Town

Talk of the Town