It may not be raining cats and dogs, but for Andy and Cindy Bell, the pigeons and rabbits are enough of a problem.
The pair wrote to council earlier this month with concerns about a non-existent bylaw to prohibit or at least regulate the keeping of animals, and to restrict their numbers.
Andy Bell said the bylaw addressed some of those issues, but it bylaw was repealed in 1997.
He said only the photos provided could fully illustrate the buildings visible from his back yard.
“But it does not allow [councillors] to appreciate the disgusting, foul smell that comes from the buildings which house pigeons and rabbits.”
There are seven outbuildings on the subdivision lot adjacent to the Bell home.
“We can no longer enjoy sitting on our deck as the stench is so strong at times, never minding the disgusting view.
In addition to the smell, the appearance of the outbuildings and additional attachments such as added cages, “we find ourselves in a situation that has made our home a less desirable place to live, which affects our property value, and limiting our ability to sell our home for fair market value.”
In his presentation March 20, Bell said “I’m here to plead the need for a bylaw. I don’t think anyone would want to live beside a farm in a subdivision. If they wanted to live next to a farm, they would move into the country.”
He said next to his property, animals are kept in high volumes. Sheds that started out to be 10 by 10 feet, seem to be increasing in size and in number.
Bell said township staff had been there to investigate.
“That is how I found out the previous bylaw was repealed.”
Bell said it seems nothing can be done to deal with small buildings that undergo numerous additions.
“I’m appealing to you to create a bylaw which restricts someone from having a number of animals which would affect neighbouring properties in a small subdivision community – as well as building additions without proper permits.”
Mayor Lou Maieron viewed the images, but asked about the animals.
Bell explained pigeons and rabbits are the main issue. He estimated they range anywhere from 50 to 100 at times.
Bell has a 75 by 125 foot lot, similar to his neighbours.
There are at least seven outbuildings on his neighbour’s property – six of which have [animal] pens.
“They are not very pretty buildings to boot,” he said.
Councillor Josie Wintersinger asked if that was the original purpose of those buildings.
“Six of them were,” Bell said.
Councillor John Brennan asked if it was a commercial enterprise “or just someone who likes rabbits and pigeons.”
Bell said he was unable to prove it is a commercial operation. “Unfortunately it is right beside my house.”
When asked the length of the operation, Bell said it has been going on for at least several years, having started with one shed and growing.
“Where does it stop?”
Bell said, “I pay my taxes to live in a subdivision; I think I have the right to go in my backyard without the constant smell, which is rather repulsive.”
Maieron asked if it would be a problem if it was just one shed with a few animals.
Bell said if it was one shed like the old bylaw with a maximum of 10 animals and kept at a regulated distance from other dwellings.
“I would never want to keep anyone from having a pet, but where is the limit?” Bell asked.
Maieron asked why the previous bylaw no longer exists.
Town manager Lisa Hass said it addressed lots under two acres. “For some reason, when we re-did the dog bylaw, it was removed.”
While Hass is uncertain why, she said there was no reason council could not look into creating a new bylaw.
Town planner Sally Stull agreed the town probably needs a bylaw in place for residential properties.
She said there is a variety of bylaws regarding urban husbandry in communities.
Stull reviewed several of them, but it would take time to draft something council can consider.
She stated, this particular situation might be more difficult to deal with because it is an existing operation and might be grandfathered.
Maieron told Bell, “You have council’s attention.”
He had no issue with a shed and a few animals, but in a residential area … It can get excessive and infringes on the rights of others to enjoy their own properties. There’s always a balance to be achieved.”
Bell still did not understand why the original regulations were appealed.
“The way I read the law now, is that I could have a goat or horse on my property. It does not seem right.”
Hass said it might take time to come up with something which is a good fit for Erin.
