By Vic Monaco, Managing Editor
HIGHTSTOWN — Despite the fact that the ordinance in question was the subject of more than nine months of debate and was approved only a month ago, the Borough Council may change the local law guiding the keeping of chickens and other farm animals.
And following a familiar trend, the latest proposed change is neither satisfying the family with a controversial chicken coop nor annoyed neighbors.
Meanwhile, the local health officer said this week that he believes the coop owner has done everything he can to be compliant and he does not believe, as some neighbors contend, that rats are necessarily a result of the coop.
”I don’t think they’re coming from the coop. I haven’t found any rodent activity near the coop,” said Robert Hary on Wednesday. “I’m not going to say chickens don’t attract rodents but they (the owners) have done what they have to.”
Mr. Harry went on to say that the “neighborhood is conducive to rodents,” — because of the nearby Rocky Brook, ponds, vegetation, old buildings and fruit trees – and that an old barn on the complaining residents’ property is a “perfect haven” for rats.
On April 7 the council voted 5-1, with Jeff Bond dissenting, to approve the ordinance which limits the number of fowl to six on any property and requires that coops be 35 feet away from property lines and the principal building on a property.
Craig Evans, of the 400 block of Stockton Street, told the council in subsequent letters he believes the ordinance violates his family’s civil rights, is not supported by state law, and, at the least, he should be entitled to seek a zoning variance.
His neighbors, who claim the coop has produced odors and beckoned rats, told the council Monday night that they were surprised and disheartened to see the issue back on its agenda. And some said they believe that was the case because the council feared a lawsuit from Mr. Evans.
Elizabeth Balciewicz said rats recently returned to her Stockton Street property.
”I will not tolerate another summer of hell, like the summer of hell of 2007,” she said. “As a taxpayer I have rights.”
Mr. Evans said there are no rats on his family’s property, and that 17 local inspections have borne that out.
Mr. Hary confirmed the inspections and said they were all the result of complaints from the Balciewicz family. He said that after a problem arose during Mr. Evans’ family vacation last summer, the property became “regularly compliant” with the public health code.
Councilman Dave Schneider said he suggested the issue be on Monday night’s agenda because he now believes the 35-foot setback is not the good compromise he thought it would be for the feuding neighbors. He said 25 feet might be more fair. If that doesn’t work, he said, the borough could always institute an outright ban later.
Borough Attorney Fred Raffetto previously agreed that the 35-foot setback probably served as a de-facto ban, given the size of borough properties. But aggrieved Stockton Street neighbor Joe Balciwiecz said Monday that his review of borough maps revealed that at least 180 properties could still have a chicken coop with that setback.
After the meeting, Mr. Raffetto said he hadn’t looked at the maps and couldn’t say if the current setback was tantamount to a boroughwide ban. But Councilman Larry Quattrone said he owns two properties that are large enough to host a coop with the setback requirement.
For his part, Mr. Evans said a 25-foot setback would not help his family because it would simply create a “little island” in the middle of his property for its coop. He said he had previously requested a setback simply from homes and not from property lines.
Councilman Schneider also said the council might want to review the limit of six animals with an eye toward the size of different animals.
But Councilman Quattrone said he was comfortable with the new ordinance, as is, later adding, “There are certain things you can’t do on a small lot. It affects your neighbors.”
Councilman Bond, who previously called the ordinance “flawed” and possibly difficult to enforce, called for a new council committee to review the issue rather than “discussing it forever here.”
But Council President Walter Sikorski said he had “reached subcommittee overflow.”
He said he is willing to consider the issue further at the next meeting of council, May 19, when a full complement of council members might be in attendance. Ryan Rosenberg and Constance Harinxma were absent Monday night.
Also carried over until May 19 was a request from the New Jersey League of Municipalities for $500 per community to challenge the newly proposed regulations of the Council on Affordable Housing.
COAH, whose regulations are voluntary but serve to protect towns from lawsuits from developers, has proposed that one new affordable housing unit be required for every five new market-priced units, down from one per nine.
Councilman Schneider repeated his position that the borough should stop adhering to the COAH regulations, and added that he doesn’t want to spend $500. Councilman Sikorski said he believes the league would proceed with its challenge without the borough’s contribution.
But Councilmen Bond and Quattrone said they thought the $500 was money well spent, leaving the council with no consensus.
