|
|||||||||||||
Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (1)
Agricultural traditions clash with new homes at goat fence
A fence on Ivandale Road in Hamilton is not making good neighbors.The fence -- and the three Alpine dairy goats it confines (there could be sheep in the future) -- is at the center of a dispute over the agriculture of old and the new homes of today.
Lesli Francis says she and her husband, Cody, bought the 3.5-acre property in 2006 with the express purpose of letting their three children have goats for a 4-H project.
The neighbors, just next door in one of Loudoun's new rural subdivisions, say they never would have bought their home had there been a "goat farm" next door.
The Francises checked the zoning before buying the modest 30-year-old brick ranch house.
No problem. Animal husbandry was allowed in 2006 on lots of 3 acres.
But on Dec. 3, 2007, the rules changed -- animal husbandry is now allowed on 5-acre lots. A 3-acre lot must apply for and receive a special exception.
Lesli Francis argues the zoning was never meant to prevent children in an agricultural district from keeping a few animals for 4-H.
Aware that the rules had changed, the Francises put the fence in and brought the goats home.
The zoning change had been recommended for several years to bring the agricultural use part of the ordinance into sync with the land-use taxation part of the law, said Zoning Administrator Melinda Artman.
Had the goats already been there in December 2007, they would have been allowed to stay. The intention of having goats doesn't qualify.
The Francises' neighbors, residents since 2004 of the new Broad Oak subdivision next door, said they told the Francises – before the fence went up -- that the current zoning does not allow the goats, and that they would file a complaint if the goats moved in.
The goats moved in, and the neighbors, as promised, filed a complaint. The county upheld the complaint, citing the current requirement for 5 acres for animal husbandry.
"Loudoun County has recognized the the need for more than 3 acres for a rural enterprise," said the neighbor, who asked not to be named.
"If Loudoun County starts making exceptions, and creating little zoning islands, it will upset property values. In this economy, property values are an issue."
He has planted a row of 17 Leyland cypress trees along the his property line that abuts the goats' enclosure. In five or 10 years, it might offer a good screen.
The neighbors deny being anti-animal. They said it's about following the law, and applying for the special exception before bringing the goats in, not after. Had the special exception been approved, they would have welcomed the chance to sit down with their neighbors and work out a compromise that would include goats, 4-H Club and protecting their property, they said.
The Francises have appealed the zoning violation to the county's Board of Zoning Appeals. No date has been set for their hearing, and the goats can stay until the appeals board rules.
They have also applied for a special exception, which might go before the Board of Supervisors in October.
At least one other Broad Oak resident has filed a complaint. A petition supporting the Francises' goats has gathered several hundred signatures.
Lesli Francis said she is sure the Board of Supervisors adopted the zoning change in December 2007 without realizing the implications.
The Board of Supervisors will have to decide where and how agricultural uses are allowed in an agricultural district, and where and how the agriculture of old can butt up against the new homes of today.
"If you are living in an agricultural zoned area, and would like to keep a few chickens for your own use,” she said, “how is that harming anyone?"
The neighbors say the rules are the rules, and everyone needs to live by them.
Contact the reporter at ssollinger@timespapers.com
It says right in the article that the change was made to comply with tax law but even that tax law may be changing if the board is thinking of requiring more than five acres for open space deferals. I think the board is right to make sure that people only get a break for having more than a big yard which is what York said when they discussed it. I think 4H is great but tax law shouldn't be written around it. These people really moved so they could have a 4H project in their yard? And they knew no goats before they got the project going? Maybe they should work out an arrangement with a neighbor with more land than 3 acres to keep the goats there and let the kids still work on their 4H.
Posted by observer
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.