Critiques needed on draft of letter to county

[pickapeppa]

regarding the zoning ordinance on small livestock. Please comment:

As a resident of this county, I have become aware that our current ordinances are somewhat restrictive in the R-2 zoning districts.

We currently reside on a 3/4 acre lot zoned R-2 in the 'country residential' planned region. We are interested in pursuing an urban sustainable lifestyle in the space that we have, but are restricted in doing so as a result of the current zoning ordinances.

According to the publicly available ordinances a greenhouse on our property would not be allowed. I found this to be surprising. The ordinance states that 'no buildings' are allowed that will be used for 'agricultural or horticultural' purposes. Also, there are no allowances for a small flock of laying hens, rabbits or miniature goats.

Not only would allowing such activities enhance the rural nature of the area under consideration, but it would also allow a person to supplement their income by providing organic, home grown vegetables, eggs, seedlings for local gardens, and fiber, soap or goat milk/cheese to the local community at affordable prices. Additionally, it would provide opportunities for the children that reside in these areas the opporunity to enjoy animal husbandry on a small scale increasing the numbers of kids who could participate in the local 4-H clubs. This is a new idea of which many are interested in becoming involved, and a quickly growing industry in many urban settings across the country. It attracts people who have a concern for the environment and food supplies, who believe in local industry over large scale commercial industry, and generally have a higher level professional, financial and educational background.

Small numbers of goats, rabbits, or laying hens are no more a danger to the health and safety of the rural area than the currently allowed numbers of dogs and cats on a property. Additionally, they enhance the ability to care for a person's property without the use of chemicals, help keep weed and insect populations under control, and return a clean source of nutrients to the soil of the garden and landscape when their waste is composted with yard debris. This is something that can't be safely done with the waste of carnivorous animals such as cats and dogs.

Loosening the restrictions in this zoning district is a win-win situation when managed properly in terms of odor concerns or noise concerns. Having chickens, mini goats, or rabbits is not nearly as noisy as barn storming air planes, motorcycles, four wheelers and snowmobiles that are frequently used at high speeds through the streets here. The odor wouldn't be any more offensive than the plastic or leaf burning activities that others undertake as well. These people are allowed to enjoy their property and the public street ways without much complaint, restriction or oversight. I find it illogical that maintaining a mini, sustainable, odor free, entertaining back yard capable of sustaining a family's nutritional and financial needs is not, whereas these other uses are.

I am asking you to please consider the positive impact on the community and local environment in allowing mini scale agricultural and horticultural activities of urban sustainable living, and to either allow a permit process or ordinance changes to make this lifestyle possible in our area.

[Danaus29]

"the opportunity to enjoy animal husbandry on a small scale increasing the number of kids who could participate in the local 4-H clubs. This is an idea in which many current residents are interested in becoming involved, and a"

Few quick changes I would suggest are above. I would make sure the other residents are interested in this proposal before sending this though.

[Liese]

perhaps giving an idea of what you mean by small numbers - someone may take that up and blow it out of proportion in a meeting. Might want to back up the numbers with facts such as 1 acre can support such and such. Otherwise the letter has a very good & positive tone to it. Definitely get as many people on board with you as possible before submitting.

[Stetson Creek]

Is this zoning a change from when you bought the property? If so, I would have an entirely different approach. I would write that your land is used for agriculture, and that the use is grandfathered in.

[pickapeppa]

A neighbor and I plan on gathering signatures on a petition. I'm hoping to recruit a few more to help with the signature process. If we can at least get a majority of residents in our section of the county plan to agree and sign their names to the change, maybe our area could serve as a test zone if they need more convincing.

I agree with the numbers of animal idea. Earlier I was trying to come up with a formula that would work along the lines of how many animal units. We are allowed no more than four dogs on any property zoned R-2 and under. They don't restrict what kind or size of dog. I was thinking of using a large dog, like a Newfoundland, multiplying their weight by four, and coming up with an equivalent to small livestock animals. The only hitch I see with this method is, dogs don't need grazing space whereas goats do.

Thanks for the sentence construction help. ;-) I plan to hang on to this letter, or to bring it with me while working the neighborhoods to gather signatures. Then bring it into the planning and zoning office for consideration.

[Danaus29]

From what I know about petitions the letter would have to be written as you want it presented and it would have to be on the same stack of papers as the signature when you are circulating it. There was a tax relief petition tossed out in Ohio for not having the same letter on all the signature packets.

[haypoint]

How large is this block of R2 zoned property that your 3/4 acre is in? Are you near it's edge. I doubt that a Zoning Board would modify a large tract of land to suit a single 3/4 acre piece. Your chances of getting a variance for your 3/4 acre parcel that is surounded by mnostly non-farming neighbors.
I give you credit for trying and your letter is flawless. You've given it your best shot, but I'd be looking for property that better suits my plans and leave this land to someone with a stronger urban slant.
Please keep us posted as this develops. There's a lot to be learned here.

[pickapeppa]

HP, our neighborhood is 1/2 mile square with 4 to 5 homes on each street outside, and 5 homes on two inside streets. Every lot is 3/4 acre except two corners at the entry which are 3 acre parcels. One of those lots is also zoned ag, one is not. Not sure why there is a difference between the two. Only one street doesn't abut to agricultural land but to another subdivision smaller than this one, with identical characteristics. The other three do back up to ag zoned property. The rest are many acres of open fields. The main road leading to our little streets is lined with 10 acre lots of agricultural land where our neighbors keep horses, cows, sheep, and poultry.

Our area is designated to become 'country residential', the goal being to preserve the 'rural nature' and a 'gradual transition' to agricultural land from the urban center. Basically, we are currently a country subdivision outside of a town that is growing and will soon be annexing property on the south and west sides of our neighborhood.

In the newly annexed areas, the plan is to build homes with a total density of no more than .33 single family home per acre of open space. Basically, they're going to be building one to three acre lots in the new subdivisions going up around this area. The one side remaining once this is built will still be ag land.

Our property itself backs up to ten acres of ag zoned land where the former owner kept horses and pastures/paddocks and a stall barn.

We aren't urban, nor do I see that happening any time in the near future. We have a well, and septic and live five miles out of town.

If there is any hope for having something like this passed, I would suspect this section of the county would be the most likely place for it to happen considering their current stated goals for the future of our area.

[OkieDavid]

I commend you on your letter as positive and well written. As I understand it, you are asking to have the restrictions on all properties zoned R-2 altered? I would oppose that and would rather encourage you to have the zoning of R-2 on your property changed to some form of light ag (not sure how your ordinances are worded). To change the restrictions on a complete zoning IMO, would require much more than a letter and some signatures whereas a zoning change on a single/few parcels would only need the blessing of the near/impacted neighbors if I were on the zoning board.

[haypoint]

Rather than attempt to have the requirements/limitations changed for R2 or trying for a variance for your 3/4 acre piece, I think you'd have better luck getting the boundry for R2 moved so you'd be in that Ag zoned district right behind you. Your neighbors already have Ag at their property line, so no big change for them, heck they may want to join you.
As a side note, I can see what they are planning to do by limiting the area to .33 families per acre, but 3 acre lots isn't the best way to do that. For better preservation to the land, smaller lots with larger areas held in common ownership. Let's say there is a 20 acre piece that is mostly all buildable. That's 8 or 9 lots. If they'd make 8 one-quarter acre lots and leave 12 acres to be shared between each of the 8 homeowners. It could be rented to a farmer for pasture, hay crop or grain crop. It could be planted to trees and walking trails developed. If properly arranged each house wouldn't face each other. For most people, owning 1/4 acre with shared ownership of 12 is more valuable than owning a 3 acre chunk.

[pickapeppa]

They are planning the housing development as you describe only with larger tracts of land in some areas, smaller in others, but the common areas will be to preserve the open space atmosphere. This is planned to be a 720 acre development.

So you think it would be easier to get rezoned than to have a permit process or ordinance changed? Special use permits for ag and hort pursuits are expressly prohibited in R-2 zoned districts. It is written up in the ordinance that special us permits are available *except* for those activities. Is a variance something different?

I wouldn't know which, having never done either. But getting rezoned can be expensive. And our lot doesn't fit the requirements for ag zoning, being only 3/4 acre in size. The smallest parcel of land they will allow any farm animal on is 3 acres.

Maybe I should call the zoning office and ask what they think would be the best avenue to take.

[dahliaqueen]

The wording may be different state by state, but the zoning on my property, and for my entire neighborhood of 12 houses abutting 100's of acres of wild land, was rural residential- this allows any farming, horses and home business. This zoning had no restriction on acreage- one parcel was 3/4 acre, the largest, 16 acres.

Zoning is changed all the time in smalll towns, altho it is usually to allow megabusiness in to move into restricted areas.


Good luck.

[deaconjim]

You seem to have enough feedback on your letter, let me make a suggestion on your greenhouse.

A building is not allowed, but putting wheels and a tongue on it makes it a trailer. They don't have to be very big or even very useful, just round.

[Chas in Me]

pickapeppa,
At the end of your letter, ask if the zoning authorities, County Council, if would be agreeable to a meeting to discuss your request. This shows enough interest to want a follow-up. Also ask how many people from your neighborhood would be accepted at the meeting. They may be willing to discuss the change with a few individuals, but they won't want a rodeo.
Chas

[Silvercreek Farmer]

Originally Posted by deaconjim

You seem to have enough feedback on your letter, let me make a suggestion on your greenhouse.

A building is not allowed, but putting wheels and a tongue on it makes it a trailer. They don't have to be very big or even very useful, just round.

Along these lines, a hoop house is not a "building" per se, but a elaborate "rain cover".

We did everything we wanted in an residential zoning for 3 years under the radar, chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats, ducks... until 2 goats escaped, and someone called the authorities, the town ended up giving us a permit even though we didn't qualify because they had never had a complaint on us.

[cindyc]

Looks good. I could think of a few things, but they are minor. Good luck.

Cindyc.

[pickapeppa]

Originally Posted by Matthew Lindsay

Along these lines, a hoop house is not a "building" per se, but a elaborate "rain cover".

We did everything we wanted in an residential zoning for 3 years under the radar, chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats, ducks... until 2 goats escaped, and someone called the authorities, the town ended up giving us a permit even though we didn't qualify because they had never had a complaint on us.

The letter is the backup plan. ;-) I'm sure it's going to be a long, slow process. Did I mention I have an impatient streak?

[Dutch 106]

Hi Guys,
You're actually going to try and reason with a beaurocracy! Never work! They are the one thing with 4 or more legs and no intelegence. If it will cause them more work or might get them in trouble, no way.
Find out what the variance procedure are and follow them. Your only chance. Unless you want to run for county board.
Unless you have the were werewithal to bribe someone on the county board. LOL
Cheers,
Dutch

[Windy in Kansas]

You have a very well written letter in my opinion. I did notice that you have airplane as air plane. Suppose we view your letter from a councilman's perspective.

Supplement income----commercial sales zone even if limited in scope.

seedlings for local growers---large greenhouse

goat milk/cheese---must want a pretty good sized herd to produce cheese for sale.

animal husbandry---while it is the correct term urban councilmen might automatically think of commercial sized herds.

allowed numbers of dogs and cats on a property---cats and dogs are always problems for authorities, are you sure you want to relate other animals to them?

return a clean source of nutrients---from the perspective of an urban councilman, oh my gosh, think of all that manure.

when managed properly--yes, but how many will manage properly or even know how?
-----
You may wish to take large satellite photos or drawings to show how large each property is within the area to indicate the semi-rural feel of it. You don't want councilmen to think of urban homes that are nearly stacked on top of each other.

You might ask for them to assign "animal units per acre" which would allow a variety of animals, each animal being assigned a different fractional or full allowable number. Where I live chickens are zoned at 20 units per acre while a cow would be fractional and not allowed at all for my size of lot. My lot size (fractional acre) thus allows me about 4 chickens.

Have you also considered an alternative proposal which would allow the greenhouse, animals, etc. but without any allowable sales from such? I think that would fly a lot better and have a much better chance of being allowed.

Look at what you ask from all perspectives and think about how you would handle future problems and complaints should any arise. Will any such problem be enough to red flag it from the get go?

You have addressed the noise and odor issue to my satisfaction, but should you really point out the potential of an unmanaged property to them?

Best wishes. I'm going to start a new thread with quotes in it that you might wish to use. Too long for here. I'll title it "The Land" quote.

[Common Tator]

See if your State has a right to farm law.

An explanation of these laws is here http://www.newrules.org/drdave/3-rttofarm.html If so, I would cite that.