CCP 04-22-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C4 A member stated she was concerned about people who have allergies. She asked if they should be required to install a flyaway barrier. A member stated he was not sure if a flyaway barrier really did much. He stated signage might be a good thing to require on a hive warning people there were bees there. He noted to a certain degree this was an exotic pet, but most people who have adverse reactions to bees carried an epi pen and he believed the likelihood of having an incident with a hive was rare. A member stated she would believe if somebody had an issue with a beehive in a neighborhood they would talk to their neighbor about it. A member stated he was thinking of putting his hive on the flat roof of his garage as this was a common practice in urban bee keeping and this would reduce his worry with respect to exposure. A member asked if it would make sense for the City to know where the hives were and for the hives to have a larger setback or raised up. He stated other cities were looking at this and were starting to regulate this. A member who had bees stated he believed a larger setback should be required and a beekeeper would not have any issue with complying with a setback. He did not envision though that there would be a large beekeeping activity in the area. A member stated in looking at this as a health/safety issue and based on the regulations in Minneapolis and St. Paul was setbacks, the flyaway barrier to direct bee upward, and a regulation for a fence or shrubbery. He stated he also saw a regulation for solid fencing so children could not get within ten feet of the hive. Mr. Hatch stated right now, there were no regulations in the City. A member asked if this could go under encourage best practices, but if they wanted to require anything, it needed to be put in a regulation. A member stated he also saw that some Cities required a person take a bee - keeping course. It was the consensus of the Task Force to continue discussion on the keeping of bees. A member stated with respect to chickens if there was not one person pushing the boundaries, she would stick with status quo. A member stated she would also. A member stated this could be an issue in the future though. Ms. Gundlach stated coops were structures, but additional regulations could be added separately. A member stated she had taken a tour of the person's urban farm who was the subject of the chickens, she did not care for the aesthetics of it, and if she lived next door to that property she would have an issue with the aesthetics. However, she stated that was her only issue. She did not smell and hear things. Mr. Hatch stated the coop on this property was a large metal frame connected to a deck. He stated it did not look like a traditional chicken coop. He stated there was large netting or chicken wire around the coop. A member asked if this was only chickens or were there also turkeys or other fowl. Mr. Hatch responded he did not know. I