[00:00:01]
FOUR. THREE. TWO. GOOD EVENING. CHAIR CALLS THE ORDER OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR CASE NUMBER
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[2. FINAL ARGUMENT]
6006, 2001 18 BUHL DRIVE. FALLSTON MARYLAND, WANT TO KIND OF WELCOME EVERYONE HERE THIS EVENING AND, JUST KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE THIS EVENING.EACH PARTY WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES, TO STATE THEIR CASE, MR. SHIFLETT, AS THE MOVING PARTY AND THE APPLICANT, YOU WILL GO FIRST. AND FEEL FREE TO SAVE ANY OF YOUR TIME BACK, IF YOU HAVE ANY, FOR REBUTTAL, MR. YOUNG, YOU'LL FOLLOW, SAME FOR YOU AS WELL. PLEASE STICK TO THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE U, COUNSEL, AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THEY PRESENT, PLEASE STICK TO THE TESTIMONY, AND WITH THAT, MR. SHIFLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT UP FRONT. YOU GOT THE CLOCK.
GOOD EVENING, SIR. GOOD EVENING, I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, OUR POSITION BEFORE WITH WITH OUR CHICKENS, AND IT SEEMS KIND OF CRAZY THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT THE CHICKENS. WE HAVE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME AND ENERGY AND TEARS TRYING TO GET US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, MY WIFE IS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY. MY BOTH OF MY DAUGHTERS ARE HERE, AND, WE'RE APPEALING TO THE BOARD TO THE TO THE COUNCIL, TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO KEEP OUR CHICKENS. THAT WE'VE, THAT WE TAKE VERY GOOD CARE OF, I DON'T REALLY HAVE, ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF, WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS ALLOW FOR THEIR JURISDICTIONS AND I DO REALIZE IT'S KIND OF AN UPHILL BATTLE WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW, BUT OUR SURROUNDING COUNTIES ARE A LITTLE BIT LESS STRINGENT. AND INCLUDING BALTIMORE CITY IS, VERY LENIENT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS. EVEN FOR, FOR SMALL ROW HOMES WITH CONCRETE BACKYARDS, THEY'RE STILL MUCH, MUCH MORE LENIENT THAN WHAT WE ARE HERE IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL HARFORD COUNTY, I DO KNOW THAT I WILL BE WORKING WITH MY COUNCILMAN. TO GET SOME RELIEF IN THE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. AND I KNOW THAT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS NOT A VERY FAVORABLE POSITION, BUT I'M ASKING FOR THE VARIANCES SO WE CAN CONTINUE WORKING TOWARDS, BEING CLOSE TO WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE FOR ALLOWING NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY THAT ARE IN THE SAME POSITION THAT WE ARE, THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, BUT TRY TO BECOME IN COMPLIANCE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. MR. SHIFLETT. MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
WE ARE HERE ON FINAL ARGUMENT FOR FOUR DIFFERENT VARIANCE REQUESTS. FIRST TO ALLOW 1A3 QUARTERS LOT ACRE LOT. WHAT IS ACTUALLY ONLY PERMITTED ON A ONE ACRE LOT THAT IS HAVING CHICKENS ON THE PREMISES. SECOND, TO ALLOW 20 CHICKENS WHERE ONLY ONE I'M SORRY, ONLY TEN CHICKENS IS PERMITTED. THIRD, TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT SETBACK WHERE A 50 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. AND THEN FINALLY TO ALLOW ON THAT THREE QUARTER LOT. LIVESTOCK WITHIN A 50 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AND ALL OF THAT IS PURSUANT TO LEGISLATION THAT THIS COUNCIL PASSED ONLY APPROXIMATELY 13 MONTHS AGO. FOR WHAT THE VARIANCE IS OR WHAT THE STANDARDS WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE POULTRY ON THE PREMISES, AS WELL AS TO HAVE THE TURKEY, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A LIVESTOCK, THE EVIDENCE ENTIRELY IN RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE'S NO BASIS THAT'S BEEN OFFERED FOR THAT. IN FACT, MR. DAVENPORT SAID. SO ANYWAY, WE DON'T FIND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION TO WARRANT THE GRANTING OF ALL THE NECESSARY VARIANCES AND THAT THE KEEPING OF THE 20 CHICKENS AND THE TURKEY IS NOT THE MINIMUM NECESSARY RELIEF TO FORWARD, RELIEF FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CODE. NOR IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MR. KEHOE AND HIS DECISION FOUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. AND MRS. SHIFFLETT WAS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE. INDEED NON-EXISTENT,
[00:05:02]
TO JUSTIFY THE GRANTING OF ANY VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT MADE NO EFFORT TO ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS. RATHER, THE TESTIMONY FOR THE MOST PART CONSISTED OF MR. AND MRS. SHIFLETT'S OBJECTIONS TO AND INDIGNATION ABOUT HAVING TO MEET ANY REQUIREMENTS AT ALL, AND I'D SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT'S THE SAME POSTURE THAT WE'RE AT TODAY. THERE IS A LEGAL BASIS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE DWELLING FOR GRANT VARIANCES. GRANTED, THERE HAS TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. THERE'S BEEN NOTHING PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, NOTHING THAT WAS RAISED IN ARGUMENT TO INDICATE THAT ONE OR ANY OF THE VARIANCES SHOULD BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REQUEST, AND RESPONSE TO AND RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR FINAL ARGUMENT FROM MR. SHIFLETT. AFTER RECEIVING THE SHIFLETT'S REQUEST FOR FINAL ARGUMENT, PEOPLE'S COUNCIL DID REQUEST FINAL ARGUMENT ON OUR OWN. MR. KEHOE GAVE AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE BROUGHT IN COMPLIANCE. MR. KEHOE ALSO EVIDENCED IN HIS DECISION, IN FACT, IN THE ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT PORTION, THE VERY FIRST LINE THAT THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS BEGAN IN 2019, THEY'VE CONTINUED ON THIS PROPERTY OFF AND ON SINCE THAT TIME. IT IS A VIOLATION CASE, AND THERE ARE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE ONGOING VIOLATIONS, NOT JUST ONE, BUT AGAIN, FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING, IT'S THEREFORE OUR POSITION THAT SIX MONTHS WAS TOO LONG TO BE GRANTED TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, AND WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DECISION ON OUR REQUEST BE MODIFIED TO REQUIRE IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME TO BRING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE GRANTING OR MAINTAINING THAT SIX MONTH PROVISION AFTER THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THEN HAVING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE ABLE TO COMMENCE GIVES AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS BEGAN IN 2019, AND THE NEIGHBORS DESERVE TO HAVE IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE DECISION BE MODIFIED TO REMOVE THE SIX MONTH PROVISION AND REQUIRE IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. THANK YOU. YOU HOLDING THE REST OF YOUR TIME, MR. YOUNG? YES MR. SHIFLETT, YOU HAVE 13 MINUTES AND EIGHT SECONDS. I WOULD I WOULD OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION OF MINE AND MY WIFE'S POSITION AS INDIGNANT. WE WERE WE WERE NOT BEING INDIGNANT. IT WAS MORE SURPRISE THAT IN RURAL HARFORD COUNTY, THAT RURAL HARFORD COUNTY IS TWO YEARS BEHIND WHERE BALTIMORE COUNTY HAS GONE TO. BALTIMORE CITY HAS GONE TO CECIL COUNTY, HAS GONE TO WITH DECISIONS FROM 2021 TO 2022 WITH ALLOWING, PEOPLE TO HAVE CHICKENS IN THEIR BACKYARDS. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT EVEN IF, WE, WE DID HAVE ONE ACRE OF LAND, WE WOULD STILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET TWO OF THE VARIANCES. TWO OF THE REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT IS THE 50 FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF OUR PROPERTY. AT THE VERY BEST, WE WOULD BE, WHETHER IT WAS WHETHER IT WOULD BE 50FT FROM ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO 50FT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 50FT FROM, FROM ONE END PUTS US INTO THE OTHER THIRD ON THE RIGHT SIDE. AND IF YOU MEASURE FROM THE RIGHT SIDE, IT PUTS US INTO THE ONE THIRD ON ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT IS PIE SHAPED AT THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT 185FT WIDE, AND THAT'S AT THE ROAD FRONTAGE AT THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY. IT GOES DOWN TO MAYBE 50FT. SO THE PROPERTY IS VERY, SHAPED LIKE A PIE. WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EVEN IF I HAD, THE ONE ACRE AND YOU MEASURED FROM THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, MAINTAINING THAT 50FT IN THE BACK TO THE 185 IN THE FRONT, IF THERE WERE ONE ACRE, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE ADDING ANOTHER QUARTER OF AN ACRE, THERE'S NO WAY I'D BE ABLE TO MEET THAT VARIANCE. AS FAR AS THE 20 CHICKENS, WE'VE ALREADY LOST ONE CHICKEN. WE'RE DOWN TO 19 CHICKENS AND THE TURKEY ITSELF IS NOT DOING VERY WELL HERSELF. SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO LAST ANOTHER THREE MONTHS.AND I DO FEEL LIKE THE, THE PEOPLE ARE PENALIZING ME AND MY FAMILY FOR GOING TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS HERE BY ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL REVOKE THE OR NOT REALLY REVOKE, BUT, PULL BACK THE SIX MONTHS AND THEN GO TO AN IMMEDIATE, REMOVAL. IF THE IF THE COUNCIL
[00:10:07]
WERE TO DECIDE THAT WE STILL HAD TO GET RID OF OUR CHICKENS. I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT'S A PENALTY FOR CHALLENGING THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER TO BE FRANK. I RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME, MR. SCHEFFLER. THANK YOU, MR. YOUR TESTIMONY AND RECORD SAYS THAT AT THE LOCATION WHERE THE COOP IS CURRENTLY PLACED, THE LOT IS 70FT WIDE, SO IT'S CORRECT THAT EVEN IF ONE OF THE VARIANCES WERE TO BE GRANTED THAT WOULD STILL BE A PROBLEM WITH BEING ABLE TO MEET THAT VARIANCE. AND I'LL CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ATTACHMENT TEN E TO THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT SHOWS THE PROXIMITY OF THE THREE FEET FROM THE COOP, WHICH IS THIS BUILDING HERE, WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBOR'S SHED, SO REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS, THE 50 FOOT SETBACK CANNOT BE MET. AND HERE, NOT ONLY IS IT NOT MET, BUT IT'S REALLY RATHER EGREGIOUS, A ONE FOOT, TWO FOOT, THREE FOOT FIVE FOOT VARIANCE IS ONE THING. A 47 FOOT FOOT VARIANCE IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REQUEST. ALL OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS CRAFTED BY THIS COUNCIL. AGAIN, APPROXIMATELY 13 MONTHS AGO, WITH THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE THAT NEIGHBORS ARE PROTECTED. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT IS ON A COURT THAT DOES RESULT IN A PIE SHAPED PROPERTY THAT IS NOT UNIQUE. WHAT IS, IF ANYTHING, IS UNIQUE IS THAT THE IMPACT IS GREATER HERE THAN IT WOULD BE IN OTHER PLACES BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THREE FEET FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. AND THE NEIGHBOR DID TESTIFY ABOUT SOME OF THOSE IMPACTS THAT ARE AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT WOULD ORDINARILY BEEN FOUND. SO WE AGAIN REQUEST THAT THE, OF THE DECISION NOT TO PERMIT ANY OF THE VARIANCES BE UPHELD AND ALSO THAT THE SIX MONTHS BE REMOVED.THAT IS NOT AS A WAY OF A PENALTY, BOTH SIDES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST FINAL ARGUMENT. IT IS ENTIRELY TYPICAL THAT IF ONE SIDE REQUESTS REQUESTS AN APPEAL OR A FINAL ARGUMENT ON ANY ISSUE, THE OTHER SIDE MAY DO SO, WE MAY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO LET THE SIX MONTHS GO AND NOT TO HAVE APPEALED, BUT THE FINAL ARGUMENT WAS REQUESTED. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE. THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO BE PROTECTED BY THE CODE, AND TO HAVE IT UPHELD IMMEDIATELY WHEN THERE'S A VIOLATION. WE HAVE A PROCESS TO ALLOW A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES.
THAT PROCESS HAS RUN ITS COURSE. IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE CODE IMMEDIATELY ENFORCED IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SHIFLETT. YES, SIR, I STILL DISAGREE. I MAINTAIN MY DISAGREEMENT WITH, THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL. AND AS FAR AS, CHARACTERIZATION OF HOW MY NEIGHBORS REACT, THERE'S ONE NEIGHBOR THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT COMPLAINED. IT'S MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR, AT 21, 16. AND FOR YEARS, THAT NEIGHBOR FED MY CHICKENS, CAME OVER, SAT WITH MY CHICKENS, AS WE DO EVERY NIGHT. WE COME OUT WITH OUR CHICKENS EVERY NIGHT, ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE SUNSET, AND WE SIT WITH OUR CHICKENS AND MY NEIGHBOR, WHO IS HERE TODAY, WOULD COME OUT NEARLY EVERY NIGHT AND FEED THE CHICKENS AND HOLD THE CHICKENS AND HANG OUT WITH US.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL, I INSTALLED AN EXHAUST FAN THAT IT BECAME PROBLEMATIC FOR HER. THE EXHAUST FAN THAT I PUT IN GOES BETWEEN OUR TWO PROPERTIES, AND IT'S JUST A SIMPLE EXHAUST FAN. SO, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE'VE WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME IN, IN ON BUELL DRIVE AND AFTER A SUDDEN CHANGE OF HEART, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL HAS COME FROM, IS JUST AN ABRUPT, CHANGE OF HEART BECAUSE SHE REALLY DIDN'T GET HER WAY ABOUT SOMETHING. AND THAT'S WHY SHE MADE A COMPLAINT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY. AFTER YEARS OF ASSOCIATING WITH NOT ONLY US, BUT OTHER NEIGHBORS, THAT IT JUST BECAME A WALL AROUND HER PROPERTY BETWEEN MY BETWEEN MYSELF AND OTHERS. BUT I, I JUST I URGE THE COUNCIL TO RULE IN OUR FAVOR. IF THE COUNCIL DID RULE IN OUR FAVOR, WE WOULD NOT ADD TO OUR FLOCK. ONCE THE FLOCK IS GONE, THAT WOULD BE THAT. AND TYPICALLY HOMESTEAD WILDFOWL LAST FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS, AND WE'RE ALREADY FOUR YEARS INTO SEVERAL OF THEM. AND THREE YEARS INTO OTHERS. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME HERE. THANK YOU, MR. SHIFLETT.
MR. YOUNG, I'LL JUST NOTE THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT WHO THE COMPLAINANT WAS IN THIS MATTER, AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. IT MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER NEIGHBORS, BUT THAT PART IS NOT IN RECORD NOR SUBMIT. I DID HAVE I DID HAVE MY NEIGHBOR TESTIFY
[00:15:06]
IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT THE COUNCIL IS AGAINST ME. AT THE LAST HEARING. SO SHE'S SHE'S ALREADY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT SHE WAS THE PERSON THAT MADE THE COMPLAINT. SO WHILE I DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE TODAY THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT, I DO KNOW THAT HER TESTIFYING AGAINST ME AND MY FAMILY OR GIVING A STATEMENT AGAINST ME AND MY FAMILY IS PROBABLY NEAR PRIMA FACIA OF EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS THE PERSON THAT THAT MADE THE COMPLAINT. AND AGAIN, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT FOR YEARS SHE WOULD COME OVER AND HANG OUT WITH US AT NEARLY EVERY NIGHT. HOLDING THE BIRDS, TALKING TO THE BIRDS, HANGING OUT WITH THE BIRDS, TESTIFYING HOW GREAT IT WAS THAT SHE ENJOYED HAVING THE CHICKENS. SHE EVEN SHE ENJOYED IT SO MUCH, SHE THREW FOOD IN HER YARD FOR MY CHICKENS TO COME OVER AND EA. SO I RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU, MR. SHIFLETT.MR. YOUNG, I SUBMIT, MR. SHIFLETT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD AT THIS TIME? I WOULD JUST ASK THE COUNCIL TO RULE IN OUR FAVOR, AND AS I SAID, WE WOULD NOT ADD TO OUR FLOCK. WE'VE GOT MAYBE THREE, THREE YEARS LEFT WITH THE BIRDS, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL AT THIS TIME, ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MR. PENMAN? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANT TO THANK, THE HEARING EXAMINER. I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. SHIFLETT. FOR THE TESTIMONY. I WANT TO THANK THE BOB KEHOE FOR THE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCERNS, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS, THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION, AND WHILE I KNOW THAT WE ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND TESTIMONY ON RECORD, I DO STRUGGLE WITH THIS CASE, ONE COMPELLING FACTOR THAT GIVES ME THE CONCERN IS MR. SHIFLETT'S PTSD THAT HE HAS TESTIFIED TO PREVIOUSLY, AND THE PERSONAL IMPACT THAT HE HAS SUFFERED. ENDURED, FROM SERVICE OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND WHILE THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT COULD CONSIDER THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATIONS, WE ARE LIMITED IN SCOPE ON THOSE FACTORS THAT COULD INFLUENCE THIS DECISION. SO ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO I STRUGGLE WITH THIS CASE. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, HOPE THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER ALL THE FACTORS AND THE CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE WEIGHING IN ON THIS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. JORDAN, GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. BRIAN SO THIS ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO 2019. HE WAS CITED IN 2019, AND IT LOOKS LIKE ENFORCEMENT WAS CEASED IN DECEMBER OF 2019, BUT HE STILL HAD THE CHICKENS IN 2019. CORRECT. MY RECOLLECTION IS THE TESTIMONY IS THE CHICKENS LEFT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN RETURNED. DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHEN THEY CAME BACK? IT DOESN'T SAY IT IN HERE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS SPECIFIED.
OKAY. AND NOT ONLY DID IT COME BACK, THERE'S NOT ONLY TEN, THERE'S 20 CHICKENS. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2019 AND TODAY, THAT'S FIVE YEARS OF HAVING CHICKENS. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE, HE DOES HAVE NEIGHBORS. AND THEN HE PUT A FAN UP AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE RELATIVELY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. AND I'M SURE IT'S ADDING SMELL AND OTHER THINGS. SO I THINK IT'S INCONSIDERATE TO HAVE CHICKENS ON LESS THAN AN ACRE, NOT ONLY HAVING AND HAVING MORE THAN TEN AND HAVING 20. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, ASKING THAT THEY'RE NOT REMOVED IMMEDIATELY WHEN HE'S HAD THEM FOR MULTIPLE YEARS ON THAT, ON THAT PROPERTY, SO IT SEEMS LIKE AND I THINK IF I GATHER CORRECTLY, YOU'RE MR. SCHEFFLER, YOU'RE AN OFFICER, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THESE, THESE ARE LAWS IN HERE AND YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAWS. SO, EVEN BEFORE THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED CHICKENS. WE DID PASS A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE CHICKENS ON ON AN ACRE OF LAND, SO I CAN'T APPROVE THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAN ONE NEIGHBOR MAYBE THAT'S COMPLAINED, BUT I THINK THAT'S INCONSIDERATE OF, OF YOUR NEIGHBORS TO HAVE THOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. JORDAN. AND MR. BENNETT. HELLO.
GOOD EVENING. I HAVE A QUICK LEGAL QUESTION. I KNOW PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE IS NO, UNDUE HARM. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE LIKE WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL, NECESSITY TO PROVE
[00:20:01]
UNDUE HARM IN A ZONING APPEALS CASE? WHAT WOULD COULD YOU GIVE ANY EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM THAT THERE WOULD BE UNDUE HARM IN A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE'S ASKING FOR, A VARIANCE? SO THE ZONING CODE PROVIDES RULES FOR HOW PROPERTY MAY BE USED IN HARFORD COUNTY AND TO BE ABLE TO GET RELIEF FROM THAT. ONE OF THE MECHANISMS IS TO REQUEST A VARIANCE. FOR A VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED. THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO PRONGS. THE FIRST IS THAT YOUR PROPERTY HAS TO BE UNIQUE IN SOME WAY, SO THAT THE CODE CAUSES UNDUE HARDSHIP OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY UPON YOU FOR YOUR USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO FOR THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE A PROPERTY THAT HAS TWO FRONT YARDS. SO IF IT'S ON A COURT AND THERE'S TWO STREETS THAT YOUR HOUSE FACES, THERE COULD BE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO FRONT YARDS AND THEREFORE BEING ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE 50 FOOT SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT WAS 20 ACRES MAY STILL BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED. IT IS FAIRLY UNIQUE TO HAVE A PROPERTY WITH TWO FRONT YARDS UNDER THE CODE. IT'S PRESUMED OR UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE IS A FRONT YARD OR BACK YARD, AND THEN TWO SIDE YARDS. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED UNIQUE. THE HARDSHIP OR DIFFICULTY WOULD BE THAT BECAUSE OF ONE OF THEM BEING CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER, THERE THEREFORE IS NO LONGER A LOCATION THAT WOULD ALLOW A CHICKEN COOP TO BE PLACED. SO THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE IN WHICH UNDUE HARDSHIP ON A UNIQUE PROPERTY COULD BE DEMONSTRATED. NEITHER OF THOSE ARE THE CASE HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MR. GUTHRIE, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. AND, MR. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY OF MY SON'S 25 YEARS RETIRED LIEUTENANT THERE. SO, BUT READING OVER THE CASE, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT. THE LAWS, THE LAW AND WHERE IT MADE, YOU WANT TO BEND IT A LITTLE, IN THIS CASE, I DON'T THINK WE CAN. I THINK THAT, YOU'RE PROBABLY. IF YOU WOULD HAVE NOT INSTALLED THAT FAN OR MAYBE TOOK MOVED IT OR SOMETHING WHEN THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED, MAYBE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. BUT THE FACT IS, WE'RE HERE, AND WE HAVE TO UPHOLD WHAT THE LAW IS. AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SUPPORT THE, EXAMINER'S DECISION. THANK YOU, MR. GUTHRIE. ANYONE ELSE? MR. SHIPLEY, YOU STILL HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. MISS DIXON, COULD YOU STRAIGHTEN THE CLOCK UP, PLEASE? IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND. SURE. I WOULD SUBMIT THAT, YOU WERE SPEAKING OF UNDUE HARM, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT UNDUE HARM, IS DIRECTLY A RELATED TO THE COUNTY'S POSITION FOR US UNDUE HARM AFTER GOING. WHAT? ME AND MY FAMILY HAS GONE THROUGH THE REMOVAL OF OUR BIRDS WOULD BE FOR US, UNDUE HARM. AND I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE STRUGGLING WITH IT. I HEARD YOU, SIR. BOTH OF YOU. BUT YOU KNOW, AFTER GOING THROUGH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH IN 2019, WHERE AS YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY READ IN THE BRIEF, I WAS INVOLVED IN A CRITICAL INCIDENT AND BOTH OF MY, MY DAUGHTERS ALSO, WHILE THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE CRITICAL INCIDENT AND THEY WEREN'T INJURED, THEY WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO US ON THAT DAY. I'M NOT TRYING TO PLAY ON EMOTIONS. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE FACTS BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN, COMBAT PSYCHOLOGISTS. AND IF HE WERE HERE TODAY, HE WOULD TELL YOU THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HELPS IMMEASURABLY WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND IT'S NOT JUST ME, IT'S MY WIFE. IT'S MY DAUGHTERS. WE'RE HERE TODAY. WE PUSH THIS AS FAR AS WE COULD. WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY DOING IT, AND IF WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THIS WAS IMPORTANT, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. SIR, YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT THAT IF WE. IF THE FAN HAD BEEN MOVED, THINGS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. BUT WHEN WE WERE ASKED TO TURN THE FAN OFF, WE. I EXPLAINED TO MY NEIGHBOR THAT ON A DAY LIKE TODAY, LAST YEAR, IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS WHERE I TOLD HER THAT IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH COOLING THE ANIMALS DOWN. ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN IT COMES TO TAKING CARE OF THE ANIMALS IS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM VENTILATION AND SHADE. AND WE DO THAT. AND IT WAS ON A DAY LIKE TODAY THAT I WAS ASKED TO TURN THE FAN OFF. AND I SAID, MARTY, I SAID, I CAN'T DO THAT, MA'AM, MA'AM, I'LL OBJECT TO ANY NEW TESTIMONY. THANK YOU MA'AM, IT'S[00:25:04]
NOT NEW. IT'S THE SAME THAT WE COULDN'T TURN THE FAN OFF. AND AFTER THAT, WE JUST WENT FROM 0 TO 60 AND HERE WE ARE. IT WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IT WAS JUST 0 TO 60. SO AGAIN, I WOULD APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE THERAPEUTIC, NEED FOR ANIMALS AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO CONVINCE YOU GUYS OF THAT. WE HAVE THERAPY DOGS. WE HAVE THERAPY A LOT OF DIFFERENT THERAPY ANIMALS. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT, CHICKENS ARE A VERY THERAPEUTIC WAY TO, COMBAT PTSD. IT HELPS MY FAMILY. IT HELPS MY DAUGHTERS. IT HELPS MY WIFE. MA'AM MA'AM, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE. THEY'RE GOING TO. THEY'RE GOING TO HELP YOU OUT. MA'AM THANK YOU.SORRY, MR. SCHIFF. THAT'S OKAY. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO SAY. I WOULD APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL, TO SUPPORT US WHILE WE CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, THE LAST YEAR HAS NOT BEEN EASY AT ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH. SO I WOULD APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL. I DO UNDERSTAND, SIR. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I DO SAME THING WITH YOU, MR. GIORDANO. I DO UNDERSTAND. AND, YOU'RE RIGHT. I AM A COP IN BALTIMORE. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DID VIOLATE THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT SAYING. WE DIDN'T. I'M SAYING THAT THERAPEUTIC BENEFIT OUTWEIGHED THE POSSIBILITY OF, HAVING TO PAY FINES. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. SO YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. BUT I'M APPEALING TO YOU. TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND AS I SAID, WHEN THE FLOCK IS GONE, THE FLOCK WILL BE GONE. THANK YOU, MR. SHIFLETT. MR. YOUNG, YOU STILL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES JUST TO RESPOND BRIEFLY TO A FEW OF THE POINTS RAISED OR QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNCIL.
THE RECORD SAYS THAT THE CHICKENS WERE OR THE CHICKEN RUN WAS CONSTRUCTED JUST BEFORE 2019 OR SOMETHING. AND THAT'S MR. SHIFLETT'S TESTIMONY, SECOND, IN REGARD TO THE FAN, THE TESTIMONY IS THAT SOMEONE MADE A COMPLAINT SHORTLY AFTER THIS TIME. THEY INCLUDED A FAN ON THAT SHED, THAT'S THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY. SO I BELIEVE THAT THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS MADE BEFORE THE FAN WAS PUT IN IS WHAT'S IN RECORD. AND THEN FINALLY, AS TO THE UNDUE HARDSHIP AND HARM THAT HARM HAS TO BE AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY. SO WHILE IT'S CERTAINLY SYMPATHETIC FOR MR. SHIFLETT'S SITUATION AND THE THERAPEUTIC NATURE OF THE CHICKENS, THE CODE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE AN INDIVIDUAL'S NEED AS DISTINCT FROM THE PROPERTY'S NEED, THAT THE PROPERTY IS WHAT HAS TO BE IMPACTED, NOT THOSE WHO ARE RESIDING UPON THE PROPERTY. SO EVEN ACCEPTING THAT EXPLANATION, WHICH MAY OR MAY YOU KNOW, WHICH CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT'S RECOGNIZABLE, AS FAR AS THE ZONING CODE IS CONCERNED, IT'S NOT. AND THE CODE COULD CERTAINLY BE CHANGED TO MAKE A TAKE, A KIND OF A THING INTO ACCOUNT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR THIS EVENING. AND SO WE ASK THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE CODE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. GENTLEMEN, BOTH OF YOU HAVE TIME LEFT. IF YOU'RE WAIVING THE TIME'S JUST ONE. ONE FINAL THOUGHT, AND THEN I'LL WAIVE THE REST OF MY TIME. YOU KNOW, IN BLACK AND WHITE, YOU CAN LOOK AT ANY CODE, WHETHER IT'S A TRAFFIC LAW, WHETHER IT'S A CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER IT'S A ZONING LAW OR ZONING REGULATION. YOU CAN LOOK AT EVERYTHING BLACK AND WHITE AND WHAT'S WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF A PAGE. AND YOU'LL YOU WILL STILL NOT CAPTURE ALL THE NUANCES THAT, THAT PARTICULAR REGULATION CAN AFFEC. SO BEING A COP FOR 30 YEARS, I KNOW VERY WELL THAT, NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE, THAT THERE ARE SHADES OF GRAY.
AND WHILE YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOU KNOW, THE LAW IS BLACK AND WHITE, THERE'S A REASON WHY POLICE OFFICERS HAVE DISCRETION WITH A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO. IT'S BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE, AND NOT EVERYTHING IS IN A BOOK, AND NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED BY READING SOMETHING IN A BOOK. THERE ARE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE JUST OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF
[00:30:03]
WHAT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN IN REGULATION. AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE THERE ARE THINGS THAT APPEAR OUTSIDE OF IT THAT WHILE I CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY I MAY NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE WITH THE RULES, THINGS JUST SOMETIMES ARE OUTSIDE OF AND NOT EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY BLACK AND WHITE, BUT I AGAIN APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU SIR. I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU BOTH FOR, COMING BEFORE US THIS EVENING, THIS WILL CONCLUDE THIS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING FOR CASE 6006. AND WE WILL VISIT IT AT A FUTURE TIME. THANK YOU, MR. SHIPLEY, FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL AS YOU, MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU