The city has been questioning the section of the zoning code
that deals with animal husbandry for some time.
Whether of or not the keeping of animals typically found on a farm was
the question in some areas of Breezy Point.
If they were to be allowed that question further went on to how many is
too much and what types of animals should be allowed. The question was raised as there has been
more interest in the topic based on a number of factors.
The city dealt with chickens as somewhat of a side step. The interest in having chickens for their
fresh eggs has been wide spread in many areas.
As a lover of fresh eggs I understand the appeal. A chicken ordinance was adopted which allows
by permit up to 6 chickens on a lot of less than 1 acre or 10 if the property
exceeds 1 acre. There are conditions
that need to be observed such as no roosters and neighbors giving approval, among
others, but having the ability to have chickens for the eggs they produce are
available to most.
Many people think of sustainability as the driver of this
activity. Others think of pets while
still more think of a hobby business in some form. As a hobby business it may only provide for the
fruits of your labor producing no income. Regardless of any
income it could produce it is still a form of a business.
The city has been going through some changes as growth and
development is again increasing. The
city in 2010 revised its Comprehensive Plan, which among other things, provided
for zoning changes to a number of areas.
One of these changes was the reduction in agriculturally zoned
property. The change involved both a
name change and actual zoning changes to lands previously zoned
agricultural. The change in name made the
Agricultural district into the Urban Reserve district. Making these changes resulted in a number of
properties that were no longer considered agricultural in use.
During this process of change in zoning the ability to
provide for agricultural use was maintained.
Prior to these changes the courts changed how conditional use permits
were considered. Conditional Use permits
in the past were the norm for land uses that would see a change in the future. The issuance
of a permit required that conditions be established, as the use was deemed a
permitted use with conditions. One of
the conditions that were typically included was a condition regarding a
timeline or end date to the permit where an applicant would need to
reapply. The court ruled that
Conditional Use Permits were permanent and they removed the ability to establish
a timeline. This ruling also required that
the permit be recorded making it a right for future property owners to have
without reapplying.
This prompted the creation of an Interim Use Permit. This permit is somewhat identical to a
Conditional Use Permit but reinstated the timeline factor into the permit. These permits are not recorded and need to be
reviewed on a periodic basis as determined by the permit conditions. Our code had not made, in most situations, a
change to this type of permit. This too
prompted concern that the use of the property for animal husbandry could be
carried on regardless of the zoning attached to the property.
To address the questions the Planning Commission formed a
committee to figure out what solutions would be best going forward. They wanted to make the change to an Interim
Use however felt with sufficient land a property owner should be able to have
some limited animal husbandry. This
discussion went on for a number of months and recommendations were made. The city council heard these recommendations
and after considerable discussion and debate they amended the proposed
ordinance that was recommended by the Planning Commission. The change was to exclude animal husbandry in
two larger lot zoning districts and to make animal husbandry in the Urban
Reserve District an Interim Use. This
was passed on a 3-2 vote, making this the requirement.
A subsequent motion was made and passed to revisit the
question as there was some concern that the property owners with larger lots
had lost some property rights with this action.
The motion requested a workshop meeting jointly between the City Council
and the Planning Commission. It is
unclear what may come from this meeting but the issue isn’t completely put to
rest. Time will tell.
