CANTON - Zoning changes that would allow chickens and community gardens in the towns residential areas will be drafted into two separate laws instead of one.
The Town Council decided Monday it would be less complicated to consider the two revisions separately, partly because rules governing animals will be more involved than those governing vegetables gardens.
I would like to separate gardens and animals and have two different laws, said Deputy Town Supervisor Paul Backus. Down the road there may be different animals proposed. To me this is a neater and simpler way to do this.
The board directed Town Attorney Charles B. Nash to provide them with draft laws at the boards March 12 meeting.
The changes would impact roughly 280 parcels in residential zones including a section of Miner Street Road where Little Grasse Foodworks, a community supported agriculture project, has been illegally operating for the past three years.
The Town Council reached its decision after several people spoke in support of allowing chickens and community gardens in the towns residential zones.
The discussion became more complicated when supporters questioned whether other forms of agriculture should be listed in the law such as bee keeping, maple sugaring and U-pick apple orchards and berry patches.
Town Supervisor David T. Button said residents who want to raise chickens will have to get approval from all their contiguous neighbors. The village of Canton allows residents to raise chickens, but also requires approval from adjoining neighbors.
The town will also require a site plan review and a special permit for those who want to raise animals in the towns residential zones.
Earlier this month, the towns Planning Board recommended revising the zoning law after about 40 people attended a meeting to support the change compared to two who were opposed.
Michael J. Furgal, 21 Woodmere Drive, reiterated his concern that the town is not enforcing its existing zoning code and questioned whether it will continue that practice.
Farming was implemented on residential property three years ago. The board was aware of it, the codes officer was aware of it, yet no action was ever taken, Mr. Furgal said. If were going to have a code enforcement officer and a code, it should be enforced.
In other board discussion, several board members said they were opposed to the 1 percent sales tax increase thats being pursued by the St. Lawrence County Legislature.
County lawmakers have proposed giving towns and villages 10 percent of the revenue generated by the extra 1 percent sales tax increase.
Town board member James T. Smith, a former county legislator, said if the county gets approval it should split the extra revenue, 50-50 with the towns and villages, which is how the county divides its 3 percent sales tax. The state sales tax is 4 percent which added to the countys 3 percent results in the existing 7 percent sales tax.
They should continue the formula as it stands, Mr. Smith said. Im awful afraid were going to end up with an 8 percent sales tax and not solve any problems. An increase in sales tax is regressive. It hits the poorest people the hardest.