 |
York OK's Backyard Chickens, Keeps Status Quo for Oysters - for NowBy Sam Thrift Thursday, November 17, 2011 
York Hall was packed Wednesday night for the Board of Supervisors meeting, which lasted until 1 a.m. and had 80 citizens offer input on proposed zoning changes. (Photo by Sam Thrift)
The most controversial topic under discussion was York County staff’s proposed changes to remove commercial aquaculture and agriculture as permitted uses in the rural conservation district (generally, residential parcels of five or more acres) and also remove agriculture from the rural residential (generally, at least an acre for a residential lot) district. The majority of the 80 citizens who spoke before the Board of Supervisors asked that they vote no to all of the proposed changes and keep York County as it is now, but the supervisors felt they could not make any decisions until they are sure Senate Bill 1190 is dead. As a result, the supervisors unanimously agreed with those who spoke against the zoning changes, but decided it would be in the locality's best interest to defer their decision until after the General Assembly's session concludes in March. The supervisors echoed the same concerns the members of the Planning Commission had about Senate Bill 1190 last week, a bill both groups credit York realtor and oyster farmer Greg Garrett for spearheading with the help of Sen. Tommy Norment last February. The bill proposed amending the Right to Farm Act to give the state more control when it comes to agriculture. The bill made it through the Senate, but was tabled in a House committee. Read more about the life of the bill by clicking here. Delegate Brenda Pogge – who originally supported the bill - showed a letter to the Board of Supervisors from Norment that ensured the supervisors that they would make sure SB1190 doesn’t come back to life. “As to SB1190. I can promise you it is dead,” Pogge said. “It was tabled at a meeting and it will not be resurrected. Tommy Norment and I will not be pursuing SB1190 or anything like it.” Even after Pogge’s statement and reading Norment’s letter, the supervisors weren’t convinced that the bill or similar legislation wouldn’t come up in the General Assembly in the next few months. “Despite the assurance that we have heard from the house and the senate that the SB1190 issue will not come up, I know with my time in government that I do not trust the government,” District 5 Supervisor Tom Shepperd said. “We can’t have an up-and-down vote because I cannot tell you what will happen next. If the state doesn’t screw with us, we will have the laws that we currently have before 1190 showed up on our door.” District 1 Supervisor Walter Zaremba mentioned the supervisors had spoken before the meeting and decided that deferring the decision on agriculture and aquaculture in RC and RR districts would be the best choice; a statement that angered some members of the crowd who participated in the four-hour comment period so their concerns would be taken into the consideration. After months of meeting with York County staff and weeks of special committees, chicken keepers in York County were very happy with last night's decision to set fewer restrictions than originally proposed during the Oct. 12 Planning Commission meeting. 
Some York residents picketed in front of York Hall before the Board of Supervisors meeting. (Photo by Sam Thrift)
The Board of Supervisors will make a final decision on the agriculture and aquaculture changes during their March 20 meeting, after the General Assembly has met for their final session. There are two oyster-farming applications up for consideration before that meeting, brought by Garrett and Anthony Bavuso. Bavuso was a member of the special agriculture and aquaculture committee created by the Planning Commission and put the petition against the zoning changes online. That petition gathered 561 signatures. “There are two applications for oyster businesses and they will go forward,” District 3 Supervisor Don Wiggins said. “Everything as it was a year ago will be the same.” To see the all decisions made by the Board of Supervisors last night, click here. To watch the meeting, click here. |
|
Copyright © 2010-2011 WY Daily. Davis Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Website by Web-tactics
Website by Web-tactics
Comments
Prior to this vote RC & RR were ALLOWED to have chickens with NO RESTRICTIONS. This HAS NOT changed. The aquaculture/agr iculture riff raft was the precipitous that was threatening the chickens in those areas NOT the chicken people.
The ONLY areas that were effected by the Chicken keeping proposals were areas (R20, R13, WCI specifically) that were NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE CHICKENS PREVIOUSLY. By pushing the chicken keeping rights forward as they were written, those people now have GAINED the RIGHT to have chickens in areas that they previously did not! And I will repeat for clarity, the RC & RR areas have EXACTLY what they had BEFORE any of the proposals!!! NOBODY had their chicken keeping rights taken away.
Everyone complaining that their chicken rights have somehow changed, pull your heads out of your backside and LOOK!!! You now have MORE RIGHTS to keep chickens than you did previously.
Somehow along the line the chickens got mashed into the aquaculture/agr iculture debate when it was suggested that ALL agriculture be removed. Had that happened and the "standards" had been enacted to apply to all areas, you would STILL be AHEAD of where you were going to be in RR & RC categories since those rights were threatened to be taken away entirely. Thank goodness that did not happen.
And let's address the grandfather thing. If you are CURRENTLY keeping chickens LEGALLY you may continue to do so UNAFFECTED by any of this! If you currently have chickens LEGALLY, you already live in RR or RC. If you are currently in R20 & R13 and have chickens, you should be HAPPY because now your neighbors can't tell you to get rid of them as long as you are meeting the standards. These standards give limitations based of the need for eggs for "personal use" and in areas of higher density housing. I'm sorry but we all have a few rules that we are following all the time... I don't hear any of you squawking about the speed limits being "unfair to your personal right to go faster." The simple truth is that in the more URBAN areas there needed to be a few standards so that the right to have chickens could be exercised. It would have NEVER passed if unlimited chicken keeping in all URBAN areas had been the quest.
The chicken folks were SAVING the chickens from existence in our county.
I support the decisions that the BoS has made and I hope they will continue with efforts to head off any laws the state may pass in order to sidestep local authority.
You worry that your rights are being taken away with the changes that have been put before the Board. I worry that appropriate changes will not be made and my property rights will be stomped on by allowing unscrupulous, property owners, to have a commercial operation right next door to me. Are my rights not as important as yours? Did you join the military just to protect your own rights?
York County is no longer a rural county. We have passed the 'built out' number, established by past boards, several times. This may in fact be the fault of the BoS, who have allowed new subdivisions to be built everywhere. I guess that would be a property rights issue also. Garrett has many acres of county land that he is waiting to develop. Much of it is waterfront. Many of the people who spoke on Wed. night stated that they moved to York for it's rural atmosphere. Well, what is it that takes the rural atmosphere away. People, lots of people. Is it not hypocritical to move in and then complain that we are loosing our 'Rural' atmosphere? Tougher zoning laws are the direct result of more and more citizens moving in.
If you want to live in a place where there are no zoning laws and your neighbor is allowed to have a rat hole next door to you, then you should move to that town. I don't always agree with York zoning, but I am grateful they are there.
Turn out in the last election was way low. Less then 10% of the voters in York. I wonder how many of the speakers on Wed. night, actually voted. It is much easier to complain about our governance then to get off your butt and do something about it.
"Military Patriot" if you think "Also There" is me you are wrong. If I say or write something I use my name. This is no feud -- if you want a dose of truth I'd be happy to speak with you. BTW -- though I wasn't fortunate enough to serve several in my family and extended family have made careers of proudly serving. Thank you for your service. Tim McC
It feels more like a slap in the face to be told, "Here, you may now exercise your God-given rights to enjoy your property. . . AS LONG AS you do it exactly this way. We'll be checking on you, too."
More to the point, the citizens included a retired major general, a few lawyers, a doctor from W&M, a school district central office administrator, successful small business owners, YC farmers, and VA delegates. Many of the rest of us were normal YC residents. That is hardly uninformed, blissfully ignorant, unsophisticated citizens. Isn't it time to stop expressing such contempt for York County citizens?
We do know what the issue is, which is that you don't get along with your neighbor, Greg Garrett and that you would rather have the the future rights of all the citizens in York County restricted so as to try and stop what Greg is doing.
I don't need Greg to tell me that having an entire county loose its property rights over a "Hatfield's and McCoy's" feud is criminal; just as is having our elected officials support and even propose such an action.
I have been around the world and lived in places with very restrictive property rights (among other things) and they are not fun places to live. The actions our board attempted to do (and still has on the docket) is going down that slippery slope of totally restrictive rights in general. This time they were trying to stop Greg Garrett. Maybe next time it will be you they are trying to restrict after your puppet, Don Wiggins retires from the board.
Greg is not perfect, nor am I, and I do say sir I doubt you are either. If you just can't get on with life and don't like living in a free country where people are allowed to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" as Thomas Jefferson originally penned the words, then I can give you the names of many countries in the world where you can move to that they will gladly limit the rights of your neighbors and you equally.
As far as getting rid of the Supervisors, the chance has come and gone. All five are in place for the next four years and they were put there by county citizens who are satisfied with their service. These are the same citizens who have contacted their supervisor and told him/her that they want regulations in place that will protect them from operations like Garrett wants to stick in a residential neighborhood. This isn't a oyster issue, it is a zoning issue.
The Sups made good decisions last night. They have protected the chicken supporters and put off the decision on aquaculture until we see what Richmond is going to do. The Board has to serve every York citizen, not just the few that publicly expressed their opinion.