Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects special permit for Fairfield chicken enclosure and approves countywide ordinance changes allowing ducks and clarifying permit process
Summary
The board denied a special-use permit request from a Fairfield Drive homeowner to retain a chicken enclosure with less-than-required property-line setbacks, and separately adopted an amendment to the county—s chicken-keeping rules that removes ducks from the prohibited list, allows chickens/ducks in appropriate planned developments and shifts"
York County—s Board of Supervisors on April 15 denied a property owner—s request for a special-use permit to keep a chicken enclosure closer than the zoning setback to an adjoining property, and the board adopted a separate ordinance change to the county—s backyard-poultry rules that will allow ducks in the same permitting framework as chickens and remove the option to use a special-use permit to reduce coop setbacks.
The first item concerned an application from Daniel and Bridget Carver for a reduced-setback special-use permit for a chicken coop and attached runs at 201 Fairfield Drive in Piney Point Estates. Staff reported the enclosure was placed within 0 to 1 foot of the western property line and that county code requires a 10-foot setback for chicken enclosures. Staff also said the previous small shed at that location had been removed and replaced with a new prefabricated structure, which meant the replacement was not a legally nonconforming ("grandfathered") structure and therefore needed to comply with current rules.
Planning staff recommended denial because site maps and a site visit showed alternative locations on the parcel that would meet the 10-foot setback without encroaching on the resource-protection buffer. The adjacent homeowner at 107 Fairfield Drive, who spoke at the meeting, said the enclosure affects drainage and could hurt property value. Applicant Daniel Carver told the board the dispute "is about aesthetics, not compliance or harm," and said multiple neighbors had signed letters supporting the enclosure. The planning commission had recommended denial (5— against; one member dissenting).
Supervisor Thomas Shepherd moved to approve the special-use permit; the motion failed on roll call. The recorded votes in sequence were No (Holroyd), No (Drury), No (Roan), No (Shepherd) and No (Knoll). The board therefore denied the special-use permit application.
Separately, the board considered ordinance amendments (proposed ordinance 25-7) that would: remove ducks from the list of prohibited fowl in the backyard-poultry section of the zoning code; allow backyard chickens and ducks on properties with an occupied detached single-family dwelling in planned-development (PD) zoning where lot and setback standards can be met; and remove the special-use-permit option for approving reduced chicken/duck setback distances, leaving variance requests to the Board of Zoning and Subdivision Appeals.
Planning staff told the board the changes modernize the ordinance and align the process for setback exceptions with normal zoning practice (variances rather than special-use permits). The board voted to adopt ordinance 25-7 (motion by Supervisor Steven Roan), and the motion carried unanimously.
Ending: The Carver property will need to relocate or otherwise bring its coop into compliance with the 10-foot setback (or pursue a variance with the BZA); countywide, the code will now allow ducks where other conditions are met, and citizens seeking setback relief must apply to the Board of Zoning and Subdivision Appeals rather than seeking a special-use permit.
