Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks local guidance on chickens; board schedules July hearing after debating three interpretive options
Summary
The board reviewed a building‑department referral about 1301 Kings Highway and the definition/allowance for 'fowl' on non‑conforming AR.3 lots. Members discussed three interpretative options and generally favored a prorated allowance; a public hearing was set for July 9 and staff was directed to publish notices and mail neighbor notifications.
The Town of Chester Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled a public hearing for July 9 to decide how town code applies to keeping fowl on a non‑conforming AR.3 lot at 1301 Kings Highway.
David Retsky, the property owner, introduced his application and described an existing coop on the parcel. Staff summarized that the town code contains inconsistent allowances across districts: SR1 allows 10 fowl per acre, AR.3 allows 25 fowl for 3+ acres, and SR2 prohibits fowl on that zoning basis. Staff said the applicant’s lot measures 2.3 acres, raising the question whether non‑conforming parcels should be treated like conforming parcels, prohibited from keeping fowl, or allowed a prorated number of fowl.
Board members discussed three interpretive options: (1) disallow fowl on non‑conforming AR.3 lots, (2) treat non‑conforming lots the same as conforming AR.3 parcels (full allowance), or (3) prorate the AR.3 allowance by actual acreage. Members repeatedly raised precedent and nuisance considerations and expressed a leaning toward option (3), prorating based on actual acreage; staff ran a sample calculation that produced approximately 19 fowl on a 2.3‑acre lot when prorating 25 fowl for 3 acres.
The board voted on a motion to set a public hearing for July 9. The call vote showed board members in favor and the chair instructed staff to publish notice in the Times Herald‑Record and to mail neighbor notifications; Melissa (secretary) will provide instructions for required mailings.
Chair Greg Feigelson noted the matter is an interpretation rather than a variance, so a Section 239 referral was not required. The hearing will allow the board to consider public comment and existing case precedent (a prior Restdale Road decision from 2023 was cited by members as related background).
