|
|
Town residents speaking out at a public hearing prior to the board's unanimous vote on the law argued against making a legal matter out of disputes traditionally settled between neighbors. "I am sympathetic to the problem, but this law is not well considered or proactive. It is singularly punitive," said Lee Jamison. "No one here wants to send a neighbor to jail for 15 days for errant livestock," she added.
Retired physician and former Supervisor Matthew Asbornsen agreed with Ms Jamison that the first offense should bring a warning rather than a fine. He also suggested holding off a vote until the board had solicited input from local farmers.
Peter Donahoe called the fine structure "extreme," adding his concern that "Stuyvesant shouldn't become known as the home of the $500 chicken." He said the law would not be consistent with the town's right-to-farm law.
On the other side was town Code Enforcement Officer Gerald Ennis, who has been struggling with upward of 30 complaints from Eichybush Road property owners Donald and Marilyn Chrysler, whose neighbor is the owner of the runaway chickens. He said the law and its hefty fines are necessary.
"I need something as zoning officer. This is for people who totally disregard their neighbor," he said. Responding to town residents concerned about the fines, Mr. Ennis first noted, "If the fine is $500 they are going to put up a fence." He also said he works with those who violate the law and issues warnings before he moves matters to town court.
Town Attorney David Ross, the author of the law, followed up by noting that it isn't Mr. Ennis who decides whether a fine is appropriate but the town judges. He also tried to assure critics of the law that owners would not face an unreasonable standard for confining their livestock. "If there is an accidental escape, there is no fine. The judge will be the fact finder here," he said.
The law as he drafted it differentiates between the animal that escapes despite the efforts of its owner and those allowed to wander. A section of the brief measure reads: "The absence of secure fencing or other structure to serve as a containment mechanism shall result in the presumption that the owner or tenant of real property permitted or allowed the trespass of the real property of another."
Mr. Ross said the law does not violate the town right-to-farm law. "You have a right to farm on your own property, not others," said Mr. Ross.
He also informed the board and residents that his research suggests the town is setting a precedent with the law. He was unable to find a similar law on the books in any community in the state. The New York State Association of Towns has asked for a copy of the law and is watching what happens here.
Dairy farmer Bill Goemer offered a farmer's perspective on the issue. "I think you have to deal with the neighbor as a neighbor. If the chickens come on your property they become your possessions. Maybe if he starts losing a few chickens he would see it differently," said Mr. Goemer.
The Chryslers, who have struggled with the unwelcome fowl for a year and a half, attended the meeting and were not happy with those unable to appreciate the necessity for the law. "Certain people need a law to make them do what they should do," said Ms. Chrysler. She said that she would never shoot any chickens that came on their land.
Town Board members Rick Cummings and Bradlee Webster spoke about the proposed law before voting to adopt it, with Mr. Cummings saying, "It seems strange that we had a law specific to dogs but not errant goats." He said that he would like to see the law applied only in the most egregious situations, with warnings coming first.
Mr. Webster chastised those opposed to the law for not seeing the Chryslers' point of view. "They have a beautiful home and lovely yard and they can't enjoy it. I think if the shoe was on the other foot, people would see things differently, and I think they are hurt by comments made this evening," he said.
