Bay Creekers Say No to Chickens in Historic District
This fancy backyard chicken house in the Historic District stands empty, awaiting a decision from town officials. (Wave photo)
CAPE CHARLES WAVE
September 29, 2014
Last week the Wave reported the results of a “chicken survey” (CLICK) conducted by Town Planner Rob Testerman: 39 respondents opposed backyard chickens, 35 were in favor, and 7 wanted more information. But the Wave noted that 20 of the responses came from Bay Creek property owners, even though the backyard chicken ordinance would apply only to the Historic District. Bay Creek makes its own rules, and chickens are not allowed. The survey results did not break out Bay Creek respondents, so there was no way to know if the Creekers were skewing the results.
At last Thursday’s work session of Town Council and the Planning Commission, Council member Sambo Brown wanted to know what the survey results would be if Bay Creek responses were eliminated. Planner Testerman didn’t have that information at his fingertips, but he supplied it the next day: Of the 55 Historic District responses, 31 favored backyard chickens, 20 were opposed, and 4 said “maybe.”
That’s a significant change: overall, only 47 percent said yes to backyard chickens, but when the Bay Creek vote is removed, the yes percentage rises to 56 percent. Even more telling, the opposition drops from 52 percent all the way down to 36 percent.
This is not the only time that Bay Creek residents have had a hand in making rules that do not apply to them: Creekers hold 40 percent of the seats on the Historic District Review Board, which must approve any construction in the Historic District but which has no purview in Bay Creek.
Creekers enjoy even more power on the Planning Commission, which also has no jurisdiction in Bay Creek. Nevertheless, the chairman and the majority of members of the Planning Commission reside in Bay Creek.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE
In the chicken survey, while Bay Creek property owners were counted, the votes of Historic District residents who rent their homes were tossed out. Testerman said that 10 responses from non-property owners were omitted, “as the goal was to gauge interest of people who would be directly affected.” He did, however, count responses from 6 persons who do not live in Cape Charles but own property there.
Regardless of the survey responses, almost all members of Town Council and the Planning Commission gave thumbs down to backyard chickens. But they nevertheless have scheduled a public hearing for 6 p.m. Tuesday, October 7, at the Civic Center (Old Library) where both Historic District residents and Bay Creekers, property owners or not, will have their three minutes to speak their mind on backyard chickens.
It seems that the town would also benefit from having a survey about allowing children to be kept in the town. They seem to present many of the same problems as chickens. Let’s be realistic here — kids are often loud and no one would dispute that they are quite messy. And what about all those harshly colored toys lying around. We must work hard to preserve our image as a quaint, rural community and at least we could outlaw the primary colors and allow only earth-tones for playthings. And of course children should not be allowed to play outside where they can be seen. Investors — oh, sorry I meant residents — might see them and think of the detriment to property values and lost sales if their customers saw such a sight. Last but not least, who is going to be in charge of enforcing the “size of flock” regulations? As one may guess, this would take some fancy sleuthing to make sure no residents were engaging in activities, especially late at night, which could result in unacceptable additions to their allowed child limit!
Somewhat truly yours,
Bruce Griffith
I live to the north of Cape Charles [town limits] and my next door neighbor got a rooster. For a while we thought it was kind of hokey, funny in a way. We call it our personal alarm clock. As time goes on, it gets less funny. If Cape Charles decides to approve chickens, Cape Charles should consider a one-year provisional law that would expire if not renewed.
@ Joseph Corcoran: I could be wrong but I thought the proposal allowed hens but not roosters.
What does it matter if representatives are from Bay Creek or town. They pay the same taxes and are subject to the same town code that “townies” have to pay. Really sick of the “them and us” mentality of many people in the town of Cape Chuck! Get a life.
Steve Downs and Bruce Griffith have it right. Seems to me that since Bay Creek residents pay Cape Charles taxes they have a legitimate right to vote on this issue. [. . .]
This is the one time that I’m pleased that Bay Creekers are meddling in town business. Helplessly drowning in goose poop behind the gates, so come over to town to deal with ours? Almost poetic.
Any Cape Charles resident can apply for open positions on the Historic Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and various other town boards. Perhaps more applicants live in Bay Creek than elsewhere in town ?