Proposed
Farm Animal Regulations
The
Board of Health will have a hearing on the proposed Farm
Animal/Barn Regulations on September 5, 2013.
The
Templeton
Agricultural Committee meeting will be held on August 15, 2013 at 6:40 p.m.
One agenda item is to discuss the proposed regulations of farm animals.
The
proposed regulations in draft format are below:
TEMPLETON BOARD
OF HEALTH REGULATION
Minimum Standards for the Keeping
of Farm Animals DRAFT
A. Purpose: The Templeton Board of Health is responsible for the protection of
the public health and welfare in the Town of Templeton. In an effort to protect
the health and safety of the public and farm animals in the town, the following
regulations are promulgated.
B. Authority: These regulations are adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, Sections 31 and 155.
C. Definitions:
Farm Animal: shall include, but not be limited to, any horse, donkey, pony,
mule, goat, swine, sheep, or any
other animal except household pets.
Corral or Paddock: shall mean a fenced area designed to allow for the free roaming
of animals.
Household Pets: shall mean animals that are normally kept inside a residential
dwelling including but not limited to dogs, cats, ferrets, fish, domestic or
exotic birds, or other small rodents.
Lot: a contiguous area of land, under one ownership, with definite
boundaries.
Manure Management Plan (MMP): shall mean a plan for the handling of manure and other wastes. MMP
shall address cleaning, composting, storage, utilization and removal of manure
and other wastes.
Stable: shall mean a building or enclosure used to house or confine one or
more animals and to store the food supplies normally associated with the
keeping of animals.
D. Permit Required: No person shall keep any farm animal
without first obtaining a permit from the Board of Health, nor shall any
person, firm or corporation owning or responsible for the custody of a farm
animal within the limits of this town, for the purpose of stabling such animal,
use or occupy any building, shed or other structure which does not conform to
the requirements of these regulations. All permits issued for the stabling of
animals prior to the adoption of these regulations shall be valid and may be
renewed subject to the regulations in effect prior to the adoption of these new
regulations providing conditions contained in the original application have not
changed and that no conditions exist that would be injurious to public health,
or restrict the normal use and enjoyment of contiguous property.
E. Minimum Land Requirements: No permit shall be issued to keep a farm animal on any lot of land
containing less than one (1) acre. Additional farm animals up to a total of
four (4) shall not be permitted unless the lot contains a minimum of two-thirds
(2/3) of an acre per each additional animal. More than four farm animals may be
permitted to be kept on lots containing more than three (3) acres provided that
lot dimensions are acceptable to the Board of Health, and provided that the
granting of such permit will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
F. Applications: All permits required by these regulations shall be made to the
Board of Health. Each application shall state the name of the applicant and the
location of the premises to be used, and each application shall specify the
area and the location of the premises for which a permit is requested and shall
specify the number and type of farm animals which are to be kept therein. Such
permits shall cover only one location. Each application shall also contain a
certified plot plan noting location of dwelling, stable, corral, dwellings
located on abutting property including locations of any on-site sewage disposal
systems and private drinking water wells within 200-feet of the proposed stable
and corral area. Said plan shall note all distances between each structure,
sewage system, and well. The Board may require additional information upon
review of the permit application.
G. Permit Renewal: All permits shall expire on December 31 of each year but may be
renewed annually on application, provided that the applicant is then qualified
to receive a permit and the premises for which a renewal is sought are suitable
for such purpose.
H. Minimum Square Footage: No person shall erect, occupy, or use for a stable any building in
the Town of Templeton unless such use is approved by the Board of Health. Each
stall shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet for the first animal and at
least 60 additional square feet for each additional animal. Property barriers,
such as appropriate fencing or closely planted trees, shall be installed, or
other appropriate measures taken, on lots where it is necessary to discourage
neighborhood children from wandering into the area of the stable, or on lots
where the location of the stable will ordinarily interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of an abutter’s property.
I. Building Requirements: Any person who proposes to remodel a
building or a portion thereof which is being used as a stable or who proposes
to construct a new building which is to be used in whole or in part as a stable
shall, prior to such remodeling, renovation or constructing, submit plans in
duplicate to the Board of Health for approval. Such construction must begin
within 90 days of date of approval. Stable shall not be occupied until the
Building Inspector issues a certificate of occupancy. A private stable shall
not be used for human habitation except with written permission from the Board of Health. If so permitted, such quarters shall meet the
requirements of the Mass. Sanitary Code Article II (Fitness for human
habitation).
J. Fencing: All premises used for the keeping or stabling of farm animals
shall be adequately fenced so as to prevent the escape of the animals there
from. At no time will animals be allowed to roam unattended. The corral shall
be adequately fenced. Fencing may be of wood, smooth woven wire with an opening
no greater than 4 inches, charged electric wire, or other suitable material
accepted by the industry. Barbed wire shall not be used. If the fence is
charged, there shall be at least one warning label where the fence is located
on street frontage and at 50-foot intervals if the frontage exceeds 100 feet.
The top barrier of the fence shall be at least 4 feet high.
K. Zoning Limitations: No such permit shall be issued which would involve a violation of
the zoning or protective bylaw of the town.
L. Sanitary requirements:
1. Each stable shall be furnished
with a frost free supply of potable water and shall be available at or near the
stable for feeding, cleaning, and fire protection purposes. All horses shall be
maintained in a clean and healthy condition. In addition, all horses shall be
required to have a certificate of inoculation against equine encephalitis and
tetanus provided by a licensed veterinarian, and such other immunizations as
required by the Division of Animal Health, Department of Agriculture, and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Said certificate or copy shall be filed with
registration of the horse.
2. Animal feed shall be stored in sealed,
moisture-proof, and vermin-proof containers.
3. Each stall in the stable shall be
provided with adequate drainage so as to remain dry and clean, in a manner
satisfactory to the Board of Health.
4. Bedding shall consist of straw,
hay or like substances but shall not contain in whole or in part any wool
waste.
5. All manure must be removed from the
stalls at least once each day and not allowed to accumulate in corrals or other
areas on the property. Manure shall be collected at a single location,
carefully chosen to maximize the distance from abutting properties and
watercourses.
6. Provisions should be made for
the disposal of manure with sufficient frequency and in such a manner as to be
satisfactory to the Board of Health and in such a manner as to prevent the
creation of objectionable conditions.
7. Location of manure pits must be
approved by the Board of Health. In fly- breeding seasons, manure shall be
periodically treated with chemicals for fly control. Any chemical approved by
the United States Department of Agriculture shall suffice. Insect control
techniques should be practiced with particular attention to the interior and
exterior walls, ceilings, and stall areas and to the exterior of the stable
building in order to control fly populations. Space sprays and resin strips
impregnated with insecticide may also be used, as well as non- insecticidal
methods.
8. Manure shall not be stockpiled
between April 15 and October 15.
9. Floors shall consist of any
material acceptable to the Board of Health, such as a thin layer of sand and
clay over a gravel base or crushed stone.
10.For ventilation purposes, each
stable shall have an effective window area of at least 10% of the total floor
area.
11.Each stable shall be located on
land with good drainage and not susceptible to flooding.
12.Each stable and corral or
paddock shall be located on a lot not less than:
a.
25-feet from an abutting property line
b. 100-feet from any swamp, stream, pond
or drainage easement
c. 100-feet from any abutting
dwelling
d. 100-feet from any private
drinking water well
These requirements may be enlarged
or increased in any particular case at the discretion of the Board of Health.
13.The corral shall be adequately
fenced. If corral is not grassed, dust control measures shall be taken. All
animals maintained under the terms of this license must be kept under control
at all times.
14.The remains of a dead horse
shall not be buried at the stable except in a hole,
a. the bottom of which shall be
minimum of four feet above high water;
b. covered with at least six feet of
compact dirt, and(iii)located at least fifteen feet from any lot line and 100
feet from any wetland or well. The Board of Health must be notified of the
death of the animal and of the proposed burial site in advance, except that if
unable to contact the Board of Health in a timely manner on weekends and
holidays, then the remains may be buried in accordance with the restrictions
outlined above and the Board of Health notified on the first working day
following. The remains may be disposed of off-stable in compliance with
applicable laws.
M. Fees: Permit cost shall be set by the Board. [See Fee Schedule]
N. Inspections: Any property used to house farm animals shall be subject to
inspection by the Inspector of Animals, the Board, or its Agent, at any
reasonable time. Failure to allow an inspection upon request shall be cause for
permit revocation. The Board or its agent may revoke a permit for cause without
a public hearing if a condition exists which may endanger the health, safety,
or welfare of the animals or the general public, or which is a nuisance. The
Board maintains the authority to hold a public hearing to consider the
revocation of a permit. Any person aggrieved shall have the right to appeal
such revocation at a public hearing of the Board of Health.
O. Inalienability: A permit to stable or keep farm animals on property in the Town of
Templeton is not transferable.
P. Variance Procedure: Any request for a variance from the regulations contained in §
201-11 must be submitted in writing to the Board. The Board shall within 21
days of receipt of the request for variance hold a public meeting, at which
time the applicant must demonstrate to the Board, by clear and convincing
evidence, that there will be no adverse effect on the public health by the
granting of the variance request. All decisions rendered by the Board shall be
made in writing and shall be kept on file in the office of the Board of Health.
Q. Enforcement: Whoever violates any of these rules and regulations may be fined
from five ($5.00) dollars but not exceeding one hundred ($100.00) dollars per
day as set by the Board of Health, depending on the severity of the violation,
and may also be subject to suspension or revocation of stable permit, when the
Board of Health finds such suspension or revocation necessary to protect public
health. Punishment shall be prescribed under M.G.L. Ch. 111, sec. 157, and any amendments
or additions thereto or any other applicable statute.
So, is it just me or does anyone else feel that members of the Board of Health must have way too much free time ? Maybe a candidate for some savings by cutting their hours ??
ReplyDeleteThe BOH has way too much time on their hands. I urge everyone to protest against these STUPID regulations. I don't think most of the BOH members could identify a Llama from a chicken. These regulations were "lifted" from the town of Northboro. Northboro??? Yep. Yuppie suburbia. What gives the BOH the right to impose these regs on Templeton. We are a "RIGHT TO FARM" community.
ReplyDeleteLet's see....Somebody in Baldwinville has been complaining about a certain resident over there....so lets PUNISH EVERYONE IN TOWN. Handle it on an individual basis and use the MGL already on the books. "Oh, I guess we didn't think about that" Most of these proposed regs are UNENFORCABLE and ARBITRARY and I WILL NOT OBEY them. Do you think I will clean out my stalls daily? MAKE ME !!! The way I feel now if they want to inspect my barn they better show up with the sheriff. I've been raising all kinds of farm animals for over 50 years and I do not need some moron from the BOH to tell me how to care for farm animals.
Oh, by the way, what the letter doesn't tell you is that they want to charge an annual $50 fee for the barn inspection (to support the animal inspector) HUH ? There are farmers in town who would do that task for FREE.
There are already laws on the books that address *animal cruelty*, *public nuisances* and other *zoing* issues.
To the BOH: Please stay the hell out of my life and do the job you were elected to do!!
This has more to do with the desire for additional funding than anything else, Tom. Go to templeton1.org, review the minutes from the June and July meetings. You will then see where this comes from. The health agent. Apparently, not satisfied with his salary or his budget.
DeleteAccording to the Farm Bureau, all that is required is an annual census. The state would appoint anyone that Templeton requested. The typical stipend is not much, and you are correct, usually it is a farmer, not the health agent. The Farm Bureau will attend the Sept. meeting if this issue does not go away before then.
The agent is apparently excellent at overstepping his bounds instead of sticking to health business. He told a prospective building purchaser who wants to open a restaurant in Baldwinville that an external grease interceptor was *not* required which is clearly in the Sewer Department regulations as a town bylaw. Then he argues with the chairman that we should "let is slide" because the guy didn't know about the requirement.
DeleteExcellent, excellent points, TomJ....I agree that these officials everywhere are tremendously overstepping their authority & trying to create a no boundaries or no off limits agenda for themselves & institute some kind of " farm police state" or questionable overseeing bureau. Yes, please stay out of people's lives who are not causing any problems. This does need to be a case by case issue if there is a circumstance that warrants it. If they are looking to further fund the already inflated pay of the health agent then he or she needs to go. Here's another Enough is enough bunch that are really stretching to hurt all the farmers & individuals who own these types of animals. My opinion this day!
DeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, pretty sure I'm not, since there will b a hearing these regs are not written in stone. Further more this is NOT a function of the health agent. This is a function of the animal inspector, and where were all these volunteers when the town coordinator asked for volunteers. The animal inspector is mandated position!!!! More importantly this "volunteer" will be responsible for rabies quarantined, as well as making the suspected case samples are sent to the state. So that means that this "volunteer" is prepared to cut the head off an animal and packed to be transported to a state lab. So you see there much much more to this than most of you know. Get the FACTS before you make a fool of yourself.
ReplyDeleteSo what is your point? This is a "right to farm" community. The aforementioned regulations have nothing to do with the tasks you mention.
DeleteWhat MGL mandates an animal inspector? If it is mandated, then fund it, but not on the backs of the large animal owners. These regulations are clearly aimed at large animal owners. I see no mention of pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, llamas, rabbits or any other farm animal. You need to get your own facts straight. In fact they are aimed at 2 particular individuals in Baldwinville. If the agent can't do his job using laws already in place then he should resign. This is obviously a ploy to get more budget money. And you are quite correct, animal inspecting is NOT a BOH function, so WHY are they overstepping their bounds? Get your own facts straight before you make a fool of yourself (again)
Dear Observer, Nobody makes a fool of themselves who tries the best they can. At least there are some of us who by our blogging get the word out even if that means being corrected. And if I am wrong in any way with the info I have tried to get on this subject then I am sorry but asking, blogging, writing with the info at hand, getting the interest or involvement of a community in whatever way possible by the best means & intent possible is never making a fool of oneself. Believe me, I have made a fool of myself in life, as I'm sure everyone has but I don't feel that anyone's opinion is making that of themselves. Enough has happened to people in the last few years that we are not surprised when authority oversteps their bounds. Eternal vigilance is always necessary to maintain your freedom. I realize that we have to have laws to protect everyone's freedom & I do respect & thank the people who volunteer their time to make us safe. I am not talking about that but the fact that many times govt. agencies go further than needed & often times impinge on that freedom more than should be. Again, what I write is my opinion. If anyone thinks I am a fool for doing so, then so be it. I do my best & that is all one can ask of anybody. Thanks for your input & added info on this matter. Have a good evening.
DeleteAnd TomJ....Thank you for your added info. You are very good at getting more facts out there. Appreciate it. You add so much to this blog site. That is my opinion. If anyone feels like they need to say we are fools for getting people involved that is their prerogative. However, usually these people are the very ones when the heat is on they run the farthest & fastest & do nothing to put out the fire but only fan the flames. Again, my opinion.
DeleteIf you research the requirements in Northborough, they appear to be aimed solely at stables. A stable being a place where horses are boarded, as in a business.
DeleteIn the Northborough regulation, nothing applies to farms. Only to stables. It may have been based on Northborough regulations, but Mr. Leger is proposing much wider control here in Templeton, a right to farm community.
Here's the link to the Northborough Horse and Stable regs:
Deletehttp://www.town.northborough.ma.us/Pages/NorthboroughMA_BOH/Regulations
According to the Farm Bureau, the state requirement is for a census of all farm animals. No way should it cost anywhere near $50 per farm. The regulations proposed for Templeton are a big overreach. Look at the trail in the BOH minutes, this is to fund a position, that according to Farm Bureau, is paid by a small stipend in towns such as Templeton. He thought that $500 was about right. And it is NOT a BOH function. If the health agent is spending time drafting proposed regulations outside his domain, maybe he does have too much time on his hands.
ReplyDeleteto isteach and Mark. Thank you for opining more eloquent than I. When you poke the bear (me) with a stick, I tend to come back with both guns blazing ;)
ReplyDeleteI will continue to do so until this issue goes away. Thank you for your support.
To Tom J and others I believe that something is needed for the people who buy a house in town with a yard and then bring a horse or two, goats, etc etc. I have seen a horse stuffed into a yard on Otter River Rd that was only a quarter acre which included the house. I have seen horses on Shady Ln standing up to their hocks in muck and only a cheap white ripped "cover it" from BJ's for shelter. I also remember a person who owned 100 acres who the MSPCA had to come in over pigs, too many and no shelter or food. But to punish people who have large animals and the acres/barns and provide good care, in my opinion is wrong. I do believe that true "agriculture" people should be excluded from the fee. Fine the people who aren't taking care of their animals.
ReplyDeleteThe abuses which you cite are handled by the MSPCA. We don't need a special regulation in Templeton. We don't need to apply for a permit to build a barn through the BOH, it is the Building Inspector's responsibility. If you see such as you describe, report it to the MSPCA. The BOH is responsible for the health of humans. This proposed regulation needs to be withdrawn. I don't have animals today, but I am not ready to give up my rights to own them just so the health agent can get a raise.
DeleteAs I said in the first post, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with the issues that Zebra has mentioned.
DeleteMark's comments ring true, we do not need more regulations on top of the ones already in place
To Recap: MSPCA for animals, MGL's dealing with common nuisances, dangers to health and safety of humans, cruelty to animals is already a criminal offense. We do not need a BOH police state here.
I firmly believe its all about new ways to get more money from the taxpayers.
The BOH is clearly overstepping their authority.
I am dialing back my ranting, here is why: I attended the agricultural meeting tonight. In attendance were the AG committee members, several concerned citizens and the BOH was represented by the Admin Assistant and one board member. About 13 people total.
ReplyDeleteLong story short: It finally came out that the proposed regulations were an attempt to garner fees in order to support the animal inspector's stipend which the town declined to fund. It is a mandated position with fines imposed for not having an animal inspector. Personally I would not be in the least bit sorry if we did not have one, but one important duty (as someone else on this blog pointed out) is handling rabies issues.
It was agreed by all that this was very poorly handled by the BOH and came across as an attempt to create a "farm police state" (my phrase). In the end the AG committed motioned to work with the BOH to ditch the proposed regs and work on what really is needed --- funding for an animal inspector. The BOH representatives will present the proposal to the other members and the AG committee will work with the BOH to present a united non-threatening position at the September public hearing on this matter. I am satisfied with this plan. I just wish the BOH had been more honest at the beginning about what this was all about.
Tom - the amount funded for this position was $500. I spoke with a gentleman from Farm Bureau, he thought that was a typical amount for a town the size of Templeton. He himself had done the job in the past in his town.
DeleteWe need to be careful that this position does not balloon out of control, such that it becomes another heavy weight on the budget. And by the way, the health agent originally told the AB that he "was qualified" and willing to perform the duties. After the AB recommended the position be funded at $500, he sent correspondence stating he would not do it.
Thanks for the update Tom
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mark, we need to make sure this does not get out of control. My previous encounters with the BOH here and elsewhere makes me leery.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see.
The $500 was mentioned as a placeholder in case the town was fined for not filling the position, not to be used as a stipend. Didn't make sense to me, since the meeting was civil and making forward progress, I did not argue about it.
Tom - if anyone would take the position for $500, there would be no fine. It's just that we had info that the most the state might fine a town was $500. Money being tight, it seemed like a better way to go than the proposal from the BOH and HA. The proposal included a large raise for the HA. In return, he was going to perform all these other duties.
ReplyDeleteIf Phil Leger would spend more time doing his job rather than trying to fabricate other ways to screw the town over for his own benifit, He just might learn how to do the job correctly that he was hired for.
ReplyDeleteHOLD ON Movin on, The Health Agent is doing a fine job mismanaging Sewer Department regulations. He's doing his own job AND our job. Let's give credit where credit due. I think he needs another raise. LOL
Delete