York Commissioners Vote for Farming Status Quo, Relaxed Rules for Chicken Keeping

By Sam Thrift Thursday, November 10, 2011

Armed with more than 16 hours of discussion over multiple public meetings, the York County Planning Commission decided last night on a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning agriculture, aquaculture and chicken keeping regulations in York County.

The input led to a 4-3 vote agreeing with the agriculture and aquaculture committee’s recommendation to retain agriculture and aquaculture as a permitted use in rural conservation (generally, residential parcels of five or more acres) and rural residential (generally, at least an acre for a residential lot) districts. Commissioners also recommended the supervisors defer their decision, revisiting it if Senate Bill 1190 – a bill that would place aquaculture under the Right to Farm Act, which allows citizens to engage in farming activities on land zoned for agricultural use without first obtaining a special use permit from a locality - or similar legislation is approved by the General Assembly.

The future of SB1190 caused the commissioners to choose a one of two sides: either risk revisiting the legislation after the bill is passed – with an estimated four-month window to pass the regulations — or pass the legislation now to ensure the county's citizens will have input as the county regulates agriculture and aquaculture.

The commissioners agreed that they would not have recommended any changes if they weren’t pressured by SB1190; a pressure they credit York Realtor Greg Garrett with creating when he pulled his oyster farm application from the Board of Supervisors agenda and approached state Sen. Tommy Norment to sponsor the bill in the General Assembly. Read about the bill's life by clicking here.

“This is the classic situation of ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ But we are here because of an attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken in the first place,” Commissioner Chris Abel said. “The [county's] intent is not to limit rights, or be the enemy of aquaculture or farming. We like living in York County and we like it the way it is.”

“With the staff-recommended process, we will have a Special Use Permit that will allow the county to have some control,” Commissioner Alexander Hamilton said. “You’ve seen how long it took us to come to this point. I’m not sure if we wait, we will have time to change it. Revisions for the comprehensive plan is coming up and we can readdress this issue then.”

York County Attorney James Barnett informed the commissioners that it would not take much time for the Board of Supervisors to put the decision back on the agenda if it is deferred because they would not have to go through the whole public hearing process again. Barnett said an aquaculture bill could be passed in February, then be enacted July 1. If SB1190 were passed, the board would not need to ask the staff or Planning Commission for a recommendation before they voted on any changes to the zoning ordinance.

During the audience comment period - before the commissioners explained and discussed the proposed regulations - a few citizens mentioned that they didn’t understand what the proposed changes meant for them, causing them to come to a local government meeting for the first time for an explanation. Some said they were confused about information they had heard at the polls on Election Day, causing concern about their businesses and property rights.

Rhetoric heard in previous meetings was echoed last night, along with some speakers blaming Garrett and state Delegate Brenda Pogge – who said last night that York County was encroaching on resident’s property rights - for originally supporting SB1190.

In an interview with WYDaily in February, Pogge said she didn’t agree that York County’s authority would be diminished with the proposed bill. “The argument that counties would lose their jurisdiction is wrong. Zoning is under their purview, and they can add setback and other requirements” under the language of the bill. So, counties could change the agricultural zoning of an area, or could change other requirements as they see fit.

She also pointed out that agricultural operations can be limited if they relate to health, safety and general welfare of residents. “With this, the counties have plenty of leeway,” Pogge said.

Read more about Pogge's support of SB1190 by clicking here.

Pogge asked to make a second comment at last night's meeting, saying she “should get to speak again because she was the only person singled out.” The commissioners denied her request.

After clarifying questions about the proposed changes, Commissioners Mark Suiter, Chris Abel, Mario Buffa, and Sean Fisher voted for the recommendation to keep the status quo.

The commissioners decided to vote on the chicken keeping committee's recommendation separately, easily agreeing 7-0 to recommend less restrictive proposals to the supervisors.

The commissioners made a point of explaining to the audience that the proposals were not inspired by the staff and their decision was only a recommendation, which could be disregarded at Wednesday's Board of Supervisors meeting.

“The Board of Supervisors came up with the proposal and, by law, they have to run it by [the staff and the Planning Commission]. So we are the necessary speed bump along the way,” Abel said. “They are basically asking us to tell them what we think they should do and what we think of it.”

Some members of the audience showed concern about how the Board of Supervisors will vote, unsure if they will take the Planning Commission’s recommendation under consideration.

Watch the Planning Commission’s meeting by clicking here. See all of the recommendations made by clicking here.