farm animals

Samantha Ilacqua loves fresh eggs and wants to have them available for her children -- like her mother had since she was in first grade -- and since Oakfield is a rural community, she believes that village residents should be allowed to own up to six egg-laying hens.

On Monday, she presented a petition signed by more than 40 other village residents asking the village trustees to change the zoning ordinance to allow hen-raising in the village.

"I feel like we should be able to have them in this rural community," Ilacqua said. "It's a right-to-farm community, and we should be able to have chickens in our own back yards, as long as they're fenced in cages and only six hens."

Here is a portion of the speech she gave to the village trustees at a previous board meeting:

Changing this law benefits both families as well as the Village of Oakfield.  The Village of Oakfield can create income from allowing hens in the Village by charging for permits.

Families should be able to know where their food came from, as well as be able to raise their own food especially in these economic times.  In January an eighteen count of eggs was $8.42.  

Chickens are great for pest control in gardens (they eat ticks), as well as waste reduction as they can eat food that would normally end up in a landfill. 

I know this topic has come up previously, and I could talk to you about statistics and proof of successful ownership in larger villages, but I think I would rather talk about why I am coming to you tonight.

I grew up in Bergen, New York.  In 1999, My first-grade class hatched chickens, and my parents decided to build a coop. We took home those chicks that hatched.  My parents have had chickens ever since.  A Cambridge study even shows the nutritional value of fresh eggs versus commercial is consistently higher.  

When my husband and I moved into our current residence, it wasn’t long before we decided we wanted chickens of our own.  There really is nothing like raising the food that you eat, knowing where it came from and teaching your children the life lessons and responsibilities that come from owning pets.  I was shocked to find out that in the Village of Oakfield, I was not allowed to have chickens at all, but if I lived in the City of Batavia, I would be allowed six hens.  

I can not think of a better time than now to allow village residents the right to grow their own food.  Eggs are a staple in homes.  I personally believe the wording of, “farm animals” is broad.  If you have ever been around chickens, they are quiet, about the same decibels as humans having a conversation.  There is a huge difference between having a goat or cow in your backyard versus having a few chickens.

I am not sure why the board has denied previous requests of allowing chickens in the village.  I have heard that one possible concern is that foxes could make their way into the village looking for the chickens.  Research suggests that well-designed coops could mitigate that risk.  I believe that education on the front end would avoid issues later on, such as a Hen agreement to be signed at the time of receiving a permit or even licensing the chicken coop by maintaining a building/zoning permit versus licensing the hens.  Additionally, this could potentially generate some decent income for the village.  Hunters obtain licenses and permit to hunt.  Fishers obtain licenses to fish.  Residents could obtain a permit to keep six hens.  

Mayor Dave Boyle said the trustees will discuss the proposal at its May meeting and perhaps vote on it that night.

Photo by Howard Owens.

A group of about 30 people attended Monday's City Council meeting, and half of them spoke about the proposed farm animals law to ban most farm animals from city limits and the feeding and care of feral cats. Volunteers For Animals member Robin Lewis, second row, in blue, waits to take her turn at the podium and dispute that a feeding ban does any good for feral cats

Forbidding people to care for homeless cats will not take care of the feral cat problem, Robin Lewis says.

She was one of about 15 people to share their thoughts during a public hearing Monday at City Hall.

“It is a cruel, inhumane, and ineffective way to solve a complex problem,” Lewis said to City Council.

In an audience of 30 or so spectators, half of them were there to voice support or opposition for a proposed farm animal law expected to go up for a vote later in the evening. The law would ban “owning, bringing into, possessing, keeping, harboring, or feeding” most farm animals and feral cats in the city, and limit chickens to six as long as they’re penned properly and don’t create an accumulated mess and odor.

Lewis and other speakers nailed one issue right on its head: it’s a complex issue when dealing with cats. She was with a group of fellow Volunteers For Animals members who stressed that the ban was not only unfair to homeless cats but that it doesn’t work for eliminating them. Spoiler alert: volunteers were happy in the end.

One point of contention was that feral cats and “community cats” are hard to tell apart; one group is often being well cared for by good samaritans while the ferals are cats born outside that are often unsocialized and therefore less friendly and seemingly wild.

Judy Sikora, who has lived in the city for 40 years, is one of those good samaritans who has been caring for stray cats. She has worked with Kathy Schwenk of Spay Our Strays to ensure the cats are spayed or neutered so as not to reproduce, and that they are healthy. There are some ferals that “occasionally do remain very wild,” she said, however, many others are redeemable to go up for adoption.

She has appreciated the work of Spay Our Strays and asked that council remove the cat ban from the proposed resolution.

“The work they do is incredible,” she said.

Kathy Schwenk, coordinator of Spay Our Strays, appeals to council that "these community cats should not be punished for one person."

Schwenk has been with Volunteers For Animals for the last 18 years and is coordinator for Spay Our Strays, which is a low-cost spay and neuter program for feral and outdoor cats. The group humanely sterilizes and vaccinates cats throughout Genesee County, including in the city of Batavia, she said.

“The caregivers did not ask for these cats. They're compassionate, caring, humans who cannot bear to see animals suffering. Some of them are in the audience right now,” Schwenk said. “These community cats should not be punished for the deeds of one citizen who irresponsibly harbors farm animals on their city property and infringes on their neighbor's rights.

“By including feral cats in the same category as farm animals, this is going to ensure undue suffering and spread of disease among our own community cats. So because of this proposed amendment, I've had several people, several upstanding city residents, contact me fearing that they will not be able to legally care for their outdoor cats anymore,” she said. “Some of these cats are strays, some are semi-socialized. Others have just been thoughtlessly left behind with a piece of trash and these compassionate people are caring for them.”

Her group worked with City Council seven years ago, after a presentation from SUNY Buffalo Law School recommended the trap/spay/neuter/vaccinate and release method for best controlling the stray cat population. Working with former Assistant City Manager Gretchen Difante and a task force, Spay Our Strays experienced “big success” by trapping 42 cats in one neighborhood, treating them per the program and releasing them.  That was in 2016.

While the issue of feral cats has come up since then, it isn’t what triggered the farm animal ordinance. Complaints from neighbors about one resident, in particular, got the ball rolling. The resident owns four goats, plus chickens, a dog and a cat. Her Burke Drive neighbors have come to council previously and complained to their ward councilman John Canale. They were fed up with loose goats charging them, eating their foliage, and the animals creating a mess and foul odor.

Who'd want farm animals in the city? resident John Ladd asks during his time at the podium Monday evening.

City resident John Ladd wanted to clarify for council what his stance was. That was after he rattled off several dates of when he’d documented seeing loose goats or chickens “roaming freely out of their enclosures.” One day he found a goat standing on his front porch eating bushes. It might seem humorous, he said, but it makes him angry.

“We don’t want a limit on farm animals, we want no such animals allowed in the city limits,” he said.

Another speaker against the ban asked council to consider the aspect of people with disabilities having a right to a support animal. What if someone wants to have an emotional support cow or giraffe, Ladd said.

“Is that possible? Is it legal?” he said.

Some folks cited state and federal laws and statements from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to support their positions on the proposed law. The resident at issue, who has said that her animals were therapeutic service animals for her daughter, was not present. Her father, Randy Turner, was present and vocal.

He estimated that although 75 percent of the city residents owned a dog or cat, “that has nothing to do with this,” he said.

“There’s no reason to have farm animals in the city,” he said.

I'm not against any animals, resident Shannon Maute says to council. These goats, these chickens, these ducks are not service animals. 

Fellow residents John Roach and Shannon Maute also supported the ban on farm animals. Roach didn’t move to the city to be near them, he said. Maute, who lives on Burke Drive, isn’t against animals, and in fact, “I love animals,” she said. But the goats, the chickens, the ducks are not service animals, and one’s pets should be properly contained, she said.

“So far I’ve had to chase one goat, three chickens and a dog out of my yard,” she said.

After everyone had a chance to speak, Council President Eugene Jankowski asked for comments before a vote. Councilman John Canale first responded to the cat comments.

“I certainly did not expect to see this turnout,” he said. “I certainly recognize that we gave our blessing to that organization (SOS). I don’t know if it’s working or not, we haven’t heard from them in years.”

Councilman Bob Bialkowski removes his support for the proposed farm animals law, and Councilman John Canale shares that when he was a kid, a neighbor tried to raise a pig next door on Bank Street.

Canale would like to continue the trap-release program, he said, but to also have more communication between SOS and the city. He suggested that people who wish to be caregivers for homeless cats should contact the nonprofit and make sure those cats are properly spayed or neutered and vaccinated.

Councilman Bob Bialkowski questioned the legitimacy of the ordinance: “All of this because of one home,” he said.

He also wondered how, if farm animals are banned, it will go if a child wants a rabbit but can’t, while her neighbor has six chickens. He suggested that when people have issues on their streets, to “talk to your neighbor … it’s called addressing the problem.”

“I’m not supporting any of this,” he said.

Jankowski explained that the city police and code enforcement departments are aware of the one issue, but with no law, not much could be done to solve it. He also pointed to the fact that Turner owns the house where his daughter Judy lives with all of those animals, and he’s against farm animals in the city. That should tell you something, Jankowski said.

“There are other issues going on that we can’t talk about,” he said.

He then proposed removing the feral cats from the entire law or stipulating that the spay/neutering program must be part of it.

“It will delay us, but I’d rather get it right,” he said. “I think we lumped it in, it was an afterthought. We made a mistake.”

Council needs more time to thoroughly review the issue of feral cats, Councilwoman Patti Pacino said.

“I definitely think we need more time to think about it,” she said.

Fellow council members Al McGinnis, Kathy Briggs, Paul Viele and Tammy Schmidt agreed.

Council unanimously voted to move forward with the farm animals ban and remove cats from the entire equation. The pared-down law will move to the Sept. 26 business meeting for a vote.

Lewis paused for a second before reacting to that news. 

"I'm ecstatic," she said. "We work to educate people and to educate them about feral and community cats. Feeding bans do not work."

Wendy Castleman of Volunteers For Animals cites that state law acknowledges the effectiveness of trap/spay/neuter/vaccinate/release programs as a way to stop cats from reproducing and the spread of disease. A feeding ban would be inhumane management of cats, she says, and it's a complex issue. 

At a time when there’s a big focus on equal rights, even animals — from dogs and chickens to goats, horses, and even therapy animals — and their owners have to be considered.

That was one conclusion during Tuesday’s city Planning and Development Committee meeting.

After discussing and debating issues of what constitutes a nuisance, how to enforce restrictions, and which animal species should or should not be allowed in the city, the group covered a gamut of options and repercussions.

Animals prevailed, for the most part. In the end, the group agreed to put forth a recommendation to use City Manager Rachael Tabelski’s drafted resolution, plus a few alterations. That will go to City Council for review and eventual vote. There will be a public hearing set before a final decision is made, Committee Chairman Duane Preston said.

“We only make some recommendations to the City Council. At that point the public hearing will be open for anybody that would like to come and voice their concerns,” Preston said. “So they need to set a public hearing. Those who have animals that would like to attend can come and voice their opinions to City Council.”

Jill Turner and her Burke Drive neighbor Teresa Potrzebowski each believe they have a valid argument for one side of the matter or the other. They disagree on whether Turner’s goats should remain on her property.

Turner told The Batavian previously that when she moved into the westside neighborhood, there was no law pertaining to her four goats. Her daughters spend time with the goats, one is in 4-H and the other girl uses the animal for therapeutic purposes, Turner said. Furthermore, she doesn’t believe they are destructive or threatening to her neighbors as some have claimed.

That’s not Potrzebowski’s experience, she said before Tuesday’s meeting. When she moved in, there were no goats, and “I wouldn’t have moved in if there had been,” she said. There’s noise, bad smells and goats constantly getting out of their small shed, she said. Turner also has chickens and ducks, and all three farm animal types come into her yard.

“I came home bringing groceries and two big ones walked into my garage,” she said.

The goats have eaten neighbors’ flowers and relieved themselves on their properties, she said.

“It smells like you’re living next door to a farm,” she said.

City Councilman John Canale raised the issue during a recent council meeting, based on resident complaints of those goats. He attended the Planning and Development meeting, but would not comment because he will have to vote on a resolution in the future and lives in the neighborhood, he said.

Committee member Matt Gray did his own research on “a number of towns and cities in the same boat,” and found that a lot of those municipalities came to a decision to restrict animals.

“I found a lot of them leaning the same way we are,” he said.

About 17 out of 25 cities had restrictions, particularly on roosters, Gray said. He suggested adding them to a list of animals not allowed in the city. That brought up other issues about if animals are allowed, how many should be allowed? What measures would be put in place to ensure proper enforcement when the restrictions are violated?

“The city would be responsible for quite a bit in terms of enforcement,” member David Beatty said. “I think whatever we recommend, enforcement is the biggest thing. How do you enforce it? How do you get cooperation of people who own animals? How problematic would that be?”

At one point he offered the suggestion to not allow any animals in the city.

“There’d be an uprising,” Beatty said.

Code Enforcement Officer Doug Randall explained that a law cannot just pertain to one segment of the population. It has to cover everyone, he said. Right now, however, a dog owner can receive repeated tickets for its continuously barking dog if the issue hasn’t been resolved.

For a goat?

“No tickets. We don’t have a law for it,” Randall said.

About an hour later, the committee agreed to forward a resolution with the additions of limiting chickens to six, banning roosters from being kept in the city, and requiring city residents to register their animals by a certain date, to be determined by council if it adopts the recommendation, or not be allowed to keep the animal on their city properties. Registering the animals will allow folks that already have chickens, goats and the like to keep them, and should make it easier to track who has what and where, Randall said.

The resolution "restricts people from owning, bringing into, possessing, keeping, harboring or feeding farm animals, cloven-hoofed animals, equine or fowl, including but not limited to cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, swine, lamas, alpaca, ducks, turkey, geese, feral cats, ponies, donkeys, mules or any other farm or wild animal within city limits."

Exceptions include:

• Chickens, as long as they are penned appropriately, do not accumulate feces or cause odor or an unsightly or unsafe condition. The addition, if approved, would limit them to six.
• Harborage, including transport to and from race tracks and all associated grounds.
• Special events with the approval of an event application.
• Animals in transit through the city.
• Transport to and from veterinary hospitals/clinics, including short-term boarding for medical procedures/conditions.
• No person shall permit an accumulation of animal and/or fowl feces on any property resulting in a foul odor or unsightly condition that makes travel or residence in the vicinity uncomfortable, or which attracts flies or other insects of animals, thereby creating an unsanitary condition and may facilitate the spread of disease of which endangers the public comfort and repose.

The registration requirement would be for people already with farm animals on their properties. If they don’t register an animal by the deadline, it would have to go.

Potrzebowski doesn’t want to have issues with any neighbor, she said, but the recommendation didn’t fill her wish not to have to deal with the animals at all.

“It defeats the purpose to have to register them,” she said.

Top photo: City Planning & Development Committee members Matt Gray, left, David Beatty and Chairman Duane Preston discuss the possibilities Tuesday evening for what to do with farm animals kept in the city. File photo of Jill Turner, pictured with one of her daughters in front, is a city resident with goats, and some of her neighbors have complained that they don't want the smell and noise created by goats, chickens and other farm animals. Committee member David Beatty makes his case for restricting, or maybe even banning, farm animals from city properties. Photos by Joanne Beck.