Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHamakua CDP Feedback from Debbie ChangZONING CODE PERMISSIBLE USES Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 Permissible Uses Cate o res: AGRICULTURE, ANIMALS COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY MANUFACTURING, REPAIR, STORAGE, CHEMICALS RECREATION RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES & COMMUNICATION WASTE DISPOSAL �2edbu,UL ��-- (try de�►��-fan � �-�u.►� cxGt � Awe s Uses Definition Staff a U d Q Memos a AGRICULTURE, ANIMALS Agricultural parks, x x Agricultural products processing -Agricultural products processing, major and minor. yes (major, x x x minor) -Agricultural products processing, minor, provided yes x x that the site or buildings used for such processing, shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any street bounding the building site. -Agricultural products processing, minor. yes x x Animal hospitals. x x x x x Animal (quarantine stations. X x 12/23/02 AORICIIIA I IPI,, ANINIAI Uses 12/23/02 Definition Staff Memos a a �' Q Q U U U Livestock production or grazing -Livestock production (excluding pigs), provided that: yes x (A) The requirements of the department of health are met; (B) Approval of the director is obtained; and (C) Any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animal shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line. -Livestock production, provided that piggeries, apiar- livestock, x ies and pen feeding of livestock shall not be closer piggery than one thousand feet to any major road or to any dis- trict other than the A district on building sites approved by the State department of health and the director. -Livestock production, provided that piggeries, apiar- yes x ies, and pen feeding of livestock shall only be located on sites approved by the State department of health and the director, and must be located no closer than one thousand feet away from any major public street or from any other zoning district. -Livestock, grazing; provided that any feed or water yes x area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any per- mitted animals shall be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line. Plant nurseries. x Riding academies, and rental or boarding stables. x x Roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products x x x grown on the premises. Sales and service of machinery used in agricultural pro- x duction. Slaughterhouses. 71 x 12/23/02 adison. Wisconsin prides itself on being a very progressive, liberal, modern city. Until recently, there was no ordinance prohibiting beekeeping within the city, although the zoning depart- ment did have "guidelines." Sometimes these -,uidelines were used to make people belie%c beekeeping was not allowed in the city. and sometimes the guidelines were used to the advantage of the beekeeper when neighbors complained. One typical guideline stated that no more than two hives could be kept on one lot. What about nucleus hives? What about freshly captured swarms'? Another guideline required that any hive be 70' away from buildings on the neighbor's lot. Even a garage? Even a shed'?? Since guidelines are not ordinances, they were mostly ignored by those of us with bees, but they did make us nervous. When our local club was firmed early in 2009, it was clear that a city beekeeping or- dinance was in the making. Luckily for us. it took the city two years to begin serious work on it. In that time, a eery diplomatic and persuasive new beekeeper, Michael Gourlic, joined our group. lie very much wanted to keep bees legally in his back yard. When he saw the tentative city sug- gestions for an ordinance, he nearly tainted. Michael took it upon himself. in the name of urban beekeepers and With the blessing ofour club. to negotiate with the city. 11is first question was. "Where in the world did the rules in this ordinance conte from'"' The head of zoning didn't know. really. lie looked on the internet. got some sample or- dinances. and copied them. When our club asked, "Where in the world did these zoning rules come front?" Michael replied, "Well, in other cities, bee- keepers didn't get involved very early, or if they did, they simply bowed to the in- cvitable. Wc're not doing that." Michael's next question to the zoning de- partment was, "Is this ordinance being de- signed to reduce complaints about bees?' �RDINANCE� The answer was. "Definitely not." Rather. Madison is making an effort to support and promote the practice of urban agriculture. The usual method of terming any new or- dinance is to draft a proposed document, and sec what public reaction is. Our head of zoning was very glad to have expert, bee- keeper input and suggestions, and was happy to work with a person representing our entire beekeeping club. He suggested that we get consensus among ourselves and present him with our best suggestions. Michael got busy and formed a commit- tee. There are people in Madison who have been keeping quite a number of beehives in their tiny, odd shaped yards for years, with no problems. They knew what they wanted to see in an ordinance, and they put their heads together to hammer out guidelines by JEANNE HANSEN Madison, Wisconsin that would promote urban beekeeping in a responsible manner. Michael had many be- hind -the -scenes discussions with the head of zoning, and with alders. He went before the Community Gardens Committee, the Sustainable Design and Energy Committee. the Board of Health, and the Planning Com- mission, before the ordinance was passed by the City Common Council. All parties shared a desire to have a safe and responsi- ble ordinance respectful of residents and the ecology. There are five key elements in Madison's new ordinance. (see the figure). I) Hives can be as close as 10 ft to a sidewalk, as long as the sidewalk is shielded by a fence or vegetation. 2) Hives can be as close as 25 ft to a neighbor's principal building, usually the house, again as long as they are (left to right) Alder Satya Rhodes -Conway, ordinance sponsor, Mike Gourlie, club representative, and Matt Tucker, Madison's Zoning Ad- ministrator. May 2012 447 Madison beekeeper Kurt Runzheimer in his yard with some young helpers. Notice urban enclosure for hives. shielded. 3) Hives can be only 3 ft from the lot line, with shielding. 4) .Amazingly, 6 hives are allowed on any lot, and each one can be 20 cubic feet in size. This works out to about 10 deeps, or 19 mediums per hive! 5) When hives are closer than 25 ft to the lot line, they must be shielded. The shielding regulation is the brainchild of our club committee, and it really im- pressed the city officials with its originality and flexibility. This is he,.,, it works. Draw a circle with a 25 ft radius around your hives. Wherever the circle intersects the edge of your lot, draw lines back to the hive to form triangles. The shielding of the hive must extend from one leg of the triangle to the other. In the figure, since the shielding is along the edge of the lot, it is long. If you were to put the shielding right tip near the hives, it could be much shorter and still ex- tend from one leg of the triangle to the other. It doesn't have to be straight, either. It could be on a diagonal or a curve within the triangle. You could use a decorative gazebo with bushes behind it as your shield- ing, as long as it touched both legs of the tri - A flyway barrier shall shield any part of a property line that is within 25 feet of a hive. The flyway barrier shall consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a combination thereof and it shall be positioned to transect both legs of a triangle extending from an apex at the hive to each end point of the part of the property line to be shielded. No more than 6 hives per lot No hive shall exceed 20 cubic feet in volume No hive shall be located F----� closer than `s feet from a public sidewalk. QO I No hive shall be located closer than feet from any property line STREET •.o No hive shall be located closer than 5 feet from a principal building on an abutting lot 448 American Bee Journal angle somewhere between your hives and your lot line. We can keep bees in the city, have lovely landscaping, and obey the ordi- nance all at the same time! Our club's cooperation with the city doesn't end with the passing of this ordi- nance. On a continuing basis, we capture swarms that appear during the summer, re- move bees from walls of buildings, partici- pate at fairs and festivals with informational booths, and sponsor beekeeping classes and conferences. Soon, we will be writing edu- cational materials for the zoning department to hand out, and consulting with them on the beekeeping web site they plan to produce. The city in turn has agreed to track bee -re- lated complaints and their resolution. Madison now has one of the most cre- ative and progressive beekeeping ordi- nances among major US municipalities. Beekeepers and city workers alike appreci- ate the code's generous guidelines in sup- port of urban agriculture. It took a team effort by all involved. To quote Michael Gourlie, "I take off my beekeeping hat and my beekeeping veil to the city of Madison officials for the job they did on this." Urban hives in winter located in protective enclosure. �}11fJ3f3�L1 �ilJi�.c3;lla s'LL�,`J r�J.4��1�'� — - -- — Pendell Apiaries Home of the Speed rh • uri Pendell ginnl & Cund,nially, l?nP,,, a! Frank & Sheri King and N kaster P.O. Box 40, Stonyford. CA 95979 Knives PIERCE E L E CTRI C sCordovan Stock Mite ' UNCAPPING KNIFE Mite Resistance •Honey Production • Hygienic Behavior • Gentleness Made it, the C'. S.. I. fi)r over 40 )e,,,• VSH Trait • Isolated Mating Yards Call 530-963-3062 Fuma ilin•B fed Ali Queens marked for free • ' - - . . . 15121 - cCoy Road, Get Your Order Ln 09 � 0 530-52 �-2 770 May 2012 449 IMPROVED RULES FOR BEEKEEPING IN HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND After a nearly three -year-long struggle, on Feb. 7, 2011, the Howard County Council ap- proved relaxed rules for backyard beekeep- ing. A zoning -related nuisance complaint filed in 2008 by an opponent of backyard beekeep- ing was the impetus to this struggle. The orig- inal complaint was lodged against a beekeeping couple, Dan and Jeri Hemerlein, members of the Howard County Beekeepers Association. The opponent was an older gen- tleman who emerged as the point person for a small and disparate group of individuals op- posed to beekeeping in the urban and subur- ban parts of the county. His disdain for stinging insects, honey bees included, was based on a notion that "there are already enough honey bees" and "I don't want bees in my backyard." At the time of the complaint, Howard County zoning officials chose to interpret the existing Howard County livestock ordinance to include honey bees. The ordinance was de- signed to apply to chickens, horses, pigs, goats, sheep and cows. It required adherence to restrictive rules that required a 200 -foot setback from any neighboring property line. If honey bees were "livestock," then the 200 - foot setback would also apply to the keeping of apiaries. Such a restrictive standard if applied to beekeeping would have effectively outlawed beekeeping in the eastern third of Howard County, an area of thousands of acres in size, making it one of the most restrictive jurisdic- tions in the county. It would have prevented 75 percent of the beekeepers in Howard County from legally keeping bees. Fortunate for Howard County beekeepers, wiser arguments and facts won the day. One helpful fact is that New York City officially legalized beekeeping in 2010 (it has always been going on, just done quietly). In addition, favorable publicity for the Obamas having a bee colony on the South Lawn of the White House was another plus. The improved beekeeping rules could not have been passed without the efforts of many people, the officers and members of the Howard County Beekeepers Association, members of the Maryland State Beekeepers Association, committed citizens and neigh- bors. Woody Medina, a member of the Howard County Beekeepers Association formed an independent organization called "Don't Squeeze the Bees," whose mission was to educate and inform. Sponsorship of the improved beekeeping ordinance by Coun- cil members Mary Kay Sigaty and Greg Fox was critical. Developing consensus for "Bee- keeping Best Practices" was critical. The most important feature of the improved bee- keeping ordinance would permit bee colonies to be within 10 feet of a neighboring property line, as long as a six-foot high fence or hedge is in place. The final hurdle came with the adoption of 310 three additional amendments to the proposed legislation. One would require beekeepers to force bees to fly at least six feet above any deck on an adjoining house, primarily through the use of plantings. A second would permit bee colonies in a front yard, if set back at least 50 feet from the street. The third amendment offered by Council member Courtney Watson and taken from the Balti- more City beekeeping code, would require that bees not "unreasonably interfere with the property of others or the comfort of the pub- lic." This story was picked up by newspapers including the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, local television and by ABC news na- tionally. The ramifications of the case are im- portant because Howard County is a county -level jurisdiction. Across the country, there are towns, cities and smaller municipal- ities that have significant beekeeping restric- tions. If anti -beekeeping forces had won here at the county level, this would have serious implications for other large jurisdictions to conclude that they too, could "ban bees." James Denny Catonsville, Maryland CONCERN ABOUT SYSTEMIC PESTICIDE USED FOR ASH BORER I am very concerned about the plan to inject insecticides into ash trees and the impact this could have on honey bees and other pollina- tors. Recently, the following appeared online: "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Re- garding Potential Side Effects of Systemic In- secticides Used To Control Emerald Ash Borer" by Jeffrey Hahn, Daniel A. Herms, and Deborah G. McCullough Several statements made in this publication deserve consideration: Statement: Ash trees are wind -pollinated and are not a nectar source for bees. Furthermore, ash flowers are produced early in the growing season and are present for only a limited num- ber of days. It is highly unlikely that bees would be exposed to systemic insecticides ap- plied to ash. Flowering plants that are polli- nated by bees or other insects should not be planted immediately adjacent to ash or other trees that will be treated with systemic insec- ticides applied to the soil, as they may also ab- sorb insecticide. Response: The ash tree is a profuse producer of pollen. Ash blooms in late April when honey bees and other native pollinators are active and building up. It is a significant source of pollen for these beneficial insects, especially mason bees which raise their young only in the spring. Since it has been assumed that bees do not collect ash pollen, no studies have been done to determine the impact on pollen foragers. This is a serious oversight. Statement: Honey bees and other insects can be affected when systemic insecticides are translocated to nectar and pollen. Imidaclo- prid is fatal to honey bees when it reaches high enough concentrations, and can have harmful sublethal effects at lower concentra- tions. Will these insecticides harm other in- sects? All of the systemic insecticides used to control EAB will impact other species of in- sects that feed on treated ash trees. Response: These statements by the re- searchers simply reinforce my concerns. They have not looked into the actual impact of the treatments on bees. The following studies support my assertion that bees do collect ash pollen, often in major proportions. MY RECOMMENDED COURSE OF AC- TION: There needs to be an analysis of the pollen of treated trees to determine pesticide residues, and the impact on pollinators must be determined before going ahead with large scale deployment of systemic insecticides in ash trees. Supporting information Pollen Gathering by Honey Bees in Lacrosse County, Wisconsin Master Thesis, University of Wisconsin. 1978. David William Severson Weekly percentages of wind -pollinated versus insect -pollinated plant species that were foraged for pollen. Wind pollinated species accounted for a bulk of the early pollen and up to 79.1 % of the pollen collected from early July to late August. Insect pollinated species were minor sources for early spring pollen, but their importance in- creased as the season advanced to where they provided almost 100% of the sample by mid- June. Insect -pollinated species then decreased in the samples until late July, after which they provided 100% of the weekly totals. Species identified as major pollen sources for the entire blooming season. Each species is listed as the percent weekly yield. Tree species provided the ma- jority of the pollen samples until late May. Box elder (Acer Negundo L.) provided up to 89.86% of the mid-April pollen, but was not utilized after April. Pollen from trembling aspen (Populus trernuloides) and ash (Frax- inus sp.) was also collected in mid-April, with ash providing up to 38.97% of the weekly total. Pollen nutrition and colony development in honey bees. Irene Keller, Peter Fluri and Anton Imdorf. 2005. Journal ofApicultural Research Wind pollinated trees as preferred pollen sources in spring. At the beginning of the vegetation period, a uniform pattern was observed across most available studies with a very pronounced dominance of different tree species as the most popular pollen sources. These included maple (Acer sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.) different fruit trees (Prunus sp. and Pyrus sp.), poplar American Bee Journal