03-16-2018, 05:26 AM
(We should not need the law to explain how to have basic courtesy to neighbors.)
Yes, but realistically, that's what we have.
In any case, I suggest that redefining "Ag" is not the answer; if these subdivisions are really "residential" they should be zoned appropriately, either by County or with suitably restrictive CC&R overlay.
Suppose that the "rooster bill" had passed. Will we repeat that process every time someone finds a "permitted agricultural use" which offends the neighbors? Noisy peacocks, stinky pigs, barking dogs...
Both RA and FA zoning allow livestock "provided that any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line". This would effectively preclude any keeping of livestock in most subdivisions, and this is probably appropriate for the current residential use as it actually exists today.
Yes, but realistically, that's what we have.
In any case, I suggest that redefining "Ag" is not the answer; if these subdivisions are really "residential" they should be zoned appropriately, either by County or with suitably restrictive CC&R overlay.
Suppose that the "rooster bill" had passed. Will we repeat that process every time someone finds a "permitted agricultural use" which offends the neighbors? Noisy peacocks, stinky pigs, barking dogs...
Both RA and FA zoning allow livestock "provided that any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line". This would effectively preclude any keeping of livestock in most subdivisions, and this is probably appropriate for the current residential use as it actually exists today.