Petition supporting micro-farming presented to Town Board
The Helm’s battle to have chickens on their property hasn’t lost any pluck.
Judge Karen Drago denied John Helm’s appeal against Town Justice Stephen Swinton Jr. early January decision that Helm was violating sections 220-4 and 220-10D of Niskayuna’s town code by keeping chicken on his property. Drago’s decision was filed in the Schenectady County Clerk’s Office on June 22 and the decision was dated June 14. Helm will return to court for resentencing in the near future.
They had no reason, and they just keep fishing. That is not justice that is witch hunting,` said Brenda Helm. `The whole time we were asking the town to tell us where we were in violation.`
Since the Helms live on an R-3 High-Density Residential District, a farm is not allowed in the town code and would require a special use permit. John Helm previously said the family tried to work with the town to figure out a solution, but he said the town was uncooperative and didn’t help them understand what solutions or avenues were available to them.
To appeal for having chickens on their property, they would have had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, but in Judge Swinton’s decision, he denied them the right to go before the board since they chose to take it to court.
Section 220-4 of Niskayuna’s Town Code, which Helm was found to be in violation of, defines farm as `any lot containing at least one acre which is used for gain in the production or raising of agricultural products, livestock, poultry and dairy products. It includes necessary farm structures within the prescribed limits and the storage of equipment used.`
A new point brought up in Judge Drago’s decision is the definition of a pet and farm in the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. A pet is defined as `any dog or cat, and shall also mean any other domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such other domesticated animal.` It goes on to state a pet cannot be a `farm animal` as the law defines.
The state law defines farm animals as `any ungulate, poultry, species of cattle, sheep, swine, oats, llamas, horses or fur-bearing animals, as defined in section 11-1907 of the environmental conservation law, which are raised for commercial or subsistence purposes.`
Helm didn’t persuade the court his chickens weren’t farm animals and were pets, said Drago in her decision, and he failed to prove the Town Court erred in its decision.
Brenda Helm said the couple is planning to appeal Drago’s decision.
Petitioning for micro-farming
Unaware of the court’s decision, Brenda Helm presented the Niskayuna Town Board with a petition she said had 125 signatures from town residents in support of her micro-farming initiative on Tuesday, June 28. Also included were an additional 100 signatures from people outside of the town.
Brenda Helm, with the help of her attorney, Jennifer Storm, drafted changes to chapters 81, 142, and 220 of the town code that would allow poultry and fowl, along with micro-farming, within R3 Residential Districts. The new farm type would only allow for personal gardens and keeping of permitted animals for the production of food for use of residents of a single-dwelling home. Animal housing and structures would need to confirm to the newly added section addressing such regulations.
`All these signatures were just kind of collected without too much effort,` said Brenda Helm. `For the most part people found us ` that is a huge statement.`
Months ago, when the snow was still falling, John Helm said he would return to the board in June with signatures collected for micro-farming cause.
Town Supervisor Joe Landry said he would look at the petition and the court’s decision and see how the town is going to approach it in the future.
`There are places in town you can have animals, livestock, farm animals. We are a town that provides that opportunity,` said Landry. `We provided her [Brenda Helm] an opportunity to go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance, and she refuses to do that so I feel we provided her ample opportunity to try and work within the rules of the town.`
Landry said the board might hand over the petition to the town’s Comprehensive Plan Committee, which he said is currently reviewing if any revisions or additions should be made to the town code. This process, he said, occurs every 10 years in the town. The Town Board appointed the committee members.
`We may just ask them to look at this material and give us a recommendation,` said Landry. `This is not an individual request; this is something that maybe should be looked at within the whole comprehensive plan of the town.`
Even if the town did allow chickens on the Helm’s property today, the chickens stirring up the initial debate wouldn’t be returning.
All of the Helms’ chickens and the rooster, `Sid,` survived the winter at the Quarter-Acre Rescue Ranch, which took in the chickens after the town booted them. Brenda eventually ended up needing to find a permanent home for her fowl because the woman taking care of the chickens is currently dealing with health problems. The only choice she was left on where to house her chickens was a commercial farm, but the humane treatment at a Burnt Hills farm appealed to Brenda.
`We buy our own eggs back because they can never be our chickens again,` she said. `In order to save them I had to lose them. I have high hopes that when this does become legal I will have the offspring of my chicks.`
Brenda’s resolve to continue collecting signatures and some day have micro-farming in Niskayuna doesn’t appear to be fading.
`I know in one way shape or form to one degree or another we are going to have the right to have chickens and have the right to have micro-farming activities in Niskayuna. There are too many people to make it go away now,` she said.“
