~ Retired and Starting My Future In The Foothills ~

[wolftracks]

And guineas!

 

[HHandbasket]

This whole ugly mess is just ridiculous. And unfortunately, Farmer Lew and I cannot attend the hearing with her on Tuesday, as we both have to work that day. I'm very frustrated because I would really like to be there to support her.

What do these people think has changed between the last time they wasted the county board of supervisors' time last fall and now? I mean, really! She actually has fewer chickens in her yard now than she did then because not only has she rehomed a significant number of her birds, but my husband and I have also processed several of her roosters for her... I think about 6 earlier this spring. In fact, we have 4 more of her young roosters here now, living in our Freezer Camp and getting fattened up to be processed in the next 1 to 2 weeks.

One of the lines of BS that these people have tried using is that they are saying she doesn't process her birds. So I'm going to see to it that she brings a delicious taco or something to the hearing, made from the meat from one of the birds in our freezer that came from HER yard! Even if I can't go to the hearing, I can still support her in whatever way I can.

This is just so pathetic.

 

[Casey3043]

I don't understand why this was reopened. In the last hearing, it was determined that the language in the county codes was ambiguous, therefore it could not be ruled that she could NOT keep poultry on her property. I thought that the way it was left was that she WAS allowed because it did not clearly state that she was NOT allowed, and that the county codes would be reviewed and rewritten to clarify the matter for FUTURE property purchasers.

In any case, at the time she purchased the property, she was ALLOWED to keep anything not specifically prohibited by the extremely vague county codes.

This has already been determined.

Are the same people still on the board of regents---I mean the county council, or whatever? If that is the case, they will doubtless rule the same way they did earlier, in order not to look more ridiculous than they already do.

Sheesh! I'll be thinking about you, Linda and sending good thoughts your way, and some common sense in the direction of the House of Lords, also known as pesky neighbors.

 

[BusyBlonde]

Unbelieveable! I can't believe the board is willing to revisit this issue; you did more than you should have had to do, and they're still harrassing you? I agree with getting an attorney, and seeing what you can do to prevent those busybodies from bringing this up every few months to harrass you and stress you out. Grrrrr! I wish I could be there at the meeting to support you. Good luck!

 

[coloradochick]

OMG!! Linda, time to arm yourself with an attorney asap. Flat out harrasment on their part. Does John have any connections he can set you up with. Sorry to hear this is happening again. We've been there also last year with my chickens. And in a neighborhood years before that the code officer told us that there was a person in the neighborhood that they would get no less than 30 complaints from every month. My question to her was "Doesn't this send up a red flag to you that this person has a problem." People

ps I don't normally condone it, but go on ahead and give them the one finger wave. If anyone derserves it they do.

 

[redhen]

Yep..its harrassment at this point. You complied with them..did what they asked...there should be NO grounds to bring this up again!
If they are saying that you don't process your birds..I would bake up a whole chicken and bring it to the hearing and say.."I'd like for you all to meet fluffy..one of the birds that I supposedly don't process"..

 

[HHandbasket]

I don't understand why this was reopened. In the last hearing, it was determined that the language in the county codes was ambiguous, therefore it could not be ruled that she could NOT keep poultry on her property. I thought that the way it was left was that she WAS allowed because it did not clearly state that she was NOT allowed, and that the county codes would be reviewed and rewritten to clarify the matter for FUTURE property purchasers.

In any case, at the time she purchased the property, she was ALLOWED to keep anything not specifically prohibited by the extremely vague county codes.

This has already been determined.

Are the same people still on the board of regents---I mean the county council, or whatever? If that is the case, they will doubtless rule the same way they did earlier, in order not to look more ridiculous than they already do.

Sheesh! I'll be thinking about you, Linda and sending good thoughts your way, and some common sense in the direction of the House of Lords, also known as pesky neighbors.

Yes, same good people still on the county board of supervisors.

I just can't believe that of all the people I know, Linda deserves this harrassment the LEAST.

 

[Wisher1000]

Linda - I have to assume that you got a decision in writing last time, if you didn't, request a copy before the hearing date. Take a copy to the hearing. Write down the verbal recommendation that the council member gave you and prepare to explain what steps you took toward the informal recommendation which were meant as a gesture of good will and cooperation. Voice your concern that the additional hearing is meant to harrass you and that you feel you have more than met the requirements and have even been kind enough to heed the informal verbal recommendations although you were not required to do so. As for the complaint that you do not process, I would agree with the charge that you do not process your birds because they are your pets and any that are used as food are processed off site. I would suspect that if you say you do process, they would claim that you are raising them for profit (remember the claim about the eggs?) or that you are operating a slaughterhouse on your property. There is no law against NOT processing birds but plenty that govern slaughter operations. Remember to listen and only answer the questions you are asked and don't volunteer any defensive explainations if you are ahead and only if you are asked directly. If you feel, when it is nearly over, that you are going to lose because of some point that you have not directly addressed, ask permission to address the point then stick to that point and that point only.

Advice from one who has been in the courtroom MANY times........

 

[Casey3043]

Excellent advice from Wisher, Linda.

I would just come down just a tiny bit heavier on the concern about harassment. What is it going to take to get these people off your back? I hope the county supervisors are somewhat embarrassed about it, provided they didn't OK the reopening of the original complaint. Who agreed to hear the whole case again? And this takes place tomorrow??

And I hope you got in touch again with your real estate people. They are still in jeopardy also, having guaranteed you that chickens would be OK there.

 

[redhen]

Linda - I have to assume that you got a decision in writing last time, if you didn't, request a copy before the hearing date. Take a copy to the hearing.  Write down the verbal recommendation that the council member gave you and prepare to explain what steps you took toward the informal recommendation which were meant as a gesture of good will and cooperation.  Voice your concern that the additional hearing is meant to harrass you and that you feel you have more than met the requirements and have even been kind enough to heed the informal verbal recommendations although you were not required to do so.  As for the complaint that you do not process, I would agree with the charge that you do not process your birds because they are your pets and any that are used as food are processed off site.  I would suspect that if you say you do process, they would claim that you are raising them for profit (remember the claim about the eggs?) or that you are operating a slaughterhouse on your property.  There is no law against NOT processing birds but plenty that govern slaughter operations. Remember to listen and only answer the questions you are asked and don't volunteer any defensive explainations if you are ahead and only if you are asked directly.  If you feel, when it is nearly over, that you are going to lose because of some point that you have not directly addressed, ask permission to address the point then stick to that point and that point only.

Advice from one who has been in the courtroom MANY times........

Great advice!