Officer (Leskin) Well I swear this is never ending post 306

[pips&peeps]

Why would you need a variance when there is no law or regulation against them?

 

[Holly O]

pips&peeps :

Why would you need a variance when there is no law or regulation against them?

I do not know. It is what the judge said in court today.
I think he was indicating the fact that their is no clearly written definition to the pet issue. It needs to be addressed to the Board for approval.

My best option to going about this is to stress the fact these are pets.​

 

[Sillystunt]

everything happens for a reason....and yes, stress that they are pets!

 

[pips&peeps]

The variance would be for what??? They would have to say what code or ordinance it pertained to is, and there is nothing......

As Mr. Spock would say, "Illogical".

 

[Quillgirl]

This is very similar to something played out in Roswell, GA. Roswell is a newly formed township with no clear ordinance, and the case went to State or County Supreme Court (i think) before the judge threw out the case as "unenforceable" due to conflicting and vague specifications, and he deemed the man's chickens as pets, not livestock for purposes of commercial sale. Said chicken-outlaw began working with the city to help write the new ordinances, but he wanted very few to zero restrictions and is a little abrasive/defensive, so didn't get much done. They are still working on it. It's best to be polite and cordial and helpful, IMO. That way you get most of what you want, rather than nothing. Here is one thread: https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=190965&p=2

Contact "Andy the Atlanta Chicken Whisperer" who recently interviewed the founder of this board. He was very involved in that case, and still is. He may give you some ideas. http://atlantachickenwhisperer.blogspot.com/

 

[WalkingWolf]

By throwing the citation out the judge indicated that there was no basis for the charge(arrest). The way I interpret it the judge is not saying you can or cannot have chickens he is saying as the current ordinances exist they have no right to cite you.

If the judge were to say yes you can have the chickens he then makes case law. Instead he dismissed the case and gave a option for both parties to rectify the situation without involving the courts. Though depending on their action it may still.

You basically have won for the moment, now it is a matter of what the council decides to do. They have the choice of writing an ordinance outlawing the chickens or restricting the ownership. My impression is the judge hopes they will enact a ordinance and as you were not in violation of any law give you a variance on the new zoning restriction.

 

[Sillystunt]

would you be grand fathered?

 

[horsejody]

It would have been nice if they told you what ordinance you are getting a variance to. Maybe all of the dog and cat owners should get variances too.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
This is why the judge refereed to a variance, he basically is hinting to the council to use wise judgment as they were wrong from the start.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
Jody they are going to have to write approve and then enact a ordinance first. The ordinance does not exist yet. Basically the judge cannot say she is guilty or not guilty of a crime that does not exist. So he threw out the charge and gave some legal advice to the council. By stating the variance I do believe he does not want this in his courtroom again and the council should heed his advice.

For the most part unless I misunderstand she won!