Findlay's farm animal debate returns

FINDLAY — Findlay City Council's attempts to create rules for keeping farm animals within city limits are meeting with public opposition again. At council's regular meeting on Tuesday, several residents who keep farm animals in the city said they properly maintain their animals, and the proposed rules would place unwarranted restrictions on the use of their property. There was considerable discussion among council members about how to draft rules to deal with nuisance complaints related to farm animals kept inside the city, without controlling their numbers. Findlay currently has no restrictions, and city officials say that makes it difficult to address problems when they arise. The proposed rules now appear to be heading for a rewrite, with standards that would address specific problems related to the animals — like smell and noise — as opposed to rules that would govern animal numbers. On Aug. 27, council's Planning and Zoning Committee voted to advance the proposed rules for further discussion by the full council, but stopped short of recommending legislation. The new proposal would grandfather animals already kept in the city. Owners would need to register their animals with the city within 90 days of the effective date of the new zoning requirements and receive a permit. Once grandfathered, the property would maintain the grandfathered right to keep the animals, in the number first registered (if higher than the maximum allowed), in perpetuity. The grandfather clause would remain intact, even if the property is sold. New owners would have 12 months to restock, or the right would be lost. Permitting would give city officials the right to inspect the property for compliance, including ensuring animal numbers are not beyond what is allowed by the zoning code or established in the grandfather clause. For now, there is no recommendation to ban the animals entirely, as other cities have done. The proposal would put restrictions on their numbers based on size, and with larger animals, lot sizes. However, there was some discussion about banning roosters within city limits. Committee discussion focused primarily on the need for the legislation and whether it's too broad or too narrow. Attempts to draft similar legislation met with public backlash two years ago. The current proposal, drafted by the Hancock Regional Planning Commission, recommends the following rules, depending on the size of the animal: • Small animals — chickens, ducks and rabbits would be limited to one animal for every 800 square feet of land, with a maximum of 24 animals. Roosters, geese and turkeys would be prohibited on lots smaller than one acre. • Mid-size animals — goats and sheep would require a minimum lot size of 2400 square feet, with up to 10 animals depending on the lot size. • Large animals — horses, cows and pigs would require a minimum lot size of 4400 square feet, with up to six animals allowed. Shelters would be required to be placed behind the home and at least five feet from the property line. Barns and stables would be required to meet the city's setback requirements. Slaughtering of small animals for personal consumption would be allowed, as long as it is kept from public view. There's no language restricting the sale of eggs. Waste would be required to be stored in a sealed container at least 50 feet from the property line, and 100 feet from wells and streams. Nuisance odors and runoff would be prohibited.