Farmers push back at bylaw
Proposed bylaw would mean no farm animals on residential properties
April Hudson
Northern News Services
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
LIIDLII KUE/FORT SIMPSON
Some residents in Fort Simpson are questioning the wisdom behind a bylaw that would restrict the types of animals people could keep on their residential-zoned properties.
Randy Sibbeston has a three-acre farm at Bannockland and is speaking out against a bylaw that would ban farm animals from residences. In this 2015 photo, his daughter Ember, left, stands with his wife Stephanie, himself and sons Randal - held by his wife - Dehcho, Joa and Dalziel. - NNSL file photo
|
The bylaw, which amends the village's current zoning bylaw, would mean residents can no longer keep poultry and farm animals on their properties.
Those who already have such animals would be allowed to keep what they have but would not be able to get any more.
The restrictions would extend to chickens, geese, ducks, swine, sheep and goats, among others.
Although the first and second readings of the bylaw passed on Sept. 19, the bylaw will have to go to a public meeting before it can be passed in third reading and thus enacted into law. That public meeting is scheduled for Oct. 17 at 6 p.m. at the village office.
The bylaw is intended to serve until the village completes its renewal of its general plan and zoning bylaw. Currently, there is no agricultural zoning available, although agricultural use is permitted under urban reserve zoning.
The decision of councillors to pass a second reading of the bylaw led to an outcry online from residents who have or plan to get farm animals.
On a Facebook page titled Fort Simpson Town Cryer, a poll posted by administrator Mark Gillanders received 23 responses in less than a week.
The poll, which asks users if they want the bylaw to pass, received 17 "no" responses and six "yes" responses.
Local farmer Randy Sibbeston, who works a three-acre vegetable farm at Bannockland where his residence is also located, said he has chickens and rabbits currently and was planning to get an Icelandic sheep as well. He said the proposed bylaw would affect his future plans, and he intends to
either oppose the bylaw or look at options for rezoning his property.
"If a person has a right to keep a dog which may be a danger to people, and cats which kill songbirds, then what's the harm in keeping chickens or a sheep?" Sibbeston said. "Chickens, for instance, (are) useful and a danger to none. The others can be liabilities. The debate quickly seems nonsensical as there are few problems with such animals even in cities."
Sibbeston said the village needs to consider whether or not farm animals are a nuisance, a pest or would impact the rights of other landowners to enjoy their properties.
"If this is not the case, then the bylaw itself becomes the nuisance," he said.
"The question the village should ask itself is if it wants to become a nuisance to its ratepayers."
The logic behind the bylaw was explained at the Sept. 19 meeting of council, where senior administrative officer Beth Jumbo said the village felt the need for an interim bylaw to control poultry and farm animals until the zoning bylaw is renewed.
When the village was going through the review stage of its animal bylaw, she said, details began to bog down the bylaw.
"We felt it would be a waste of time, if we were going to do it again with (our) new zoning bylaw that we're going to create this coming year," she said.
"We were running into (issues) where we only wanted poultry and farm animals on agricultural-zone properties . There was a lot of discrepancy on where council wanted to go on this animal bylaw versus the zoning bylaw."
