To the Editor:

I have attended three public board meetings on the issue of creating a special permit process to allow for small-scale agricultural activities in Canton's residential zone.

At the first meeting, David Button assured the many in attendance that the board was in favor of small agriculture and wanted to work with us. He went so far as to discourage us from speaking, saying we could “talk as much as we wanted” but that the board already agreed with us.

Many still chose to speak in favor of allowing for agriculture in the residential zone, citing economic, cultural, health, and environmental benefits of local food.

Students, professors, young professionals, families, and lifelong Canton residents all spoke in favor. I took Mr. Button at his word and left the meeting thinking the board would be drafting a piece of legislation that would address our concerns.

I was to be disappointed. At the most recent public meeting on this issue, two draft amendments were presented that, rather than giving residents ways to legally grow produce for sale or animals for their own consumption, instead set arbitrary and unreasonable limits on their ability to even apply for a special permit.

The two amendments separately address poultry and community supported agriculture.

Both require a minimum of three acres of land, and poultry requires the consent of all adjoining neighbors, before a special permit application can be considered.

Several attendees raised objections to the three-acre minimum, citing various concerns. Why is a minimum necessary when the permit process requires that the applicant demonstrate they have the proper facilities for the activity?

Is three-acres really necessary to raise a couple chickens? Why should the residential zoning be more restrictive than the Village's, which has no minimum acreage requirement? Several times, attendees asked the board to explain the reasoning behind the three-acre minimum.

The closest thing to an answer was Mr. Button's statement that some people objected to creating the special permit process, so the minimum was a “compromise” between those in favor and those against. In fact, this minimum means only 56 of 239 parcels in the Town's residential zone could even apply for a special permit.

Odd compromise—especially given that at the meetings I attended, only one person present was opposed to creating new allowances for residential agriculture, while approximately 25 were in favor.

I was disappointed at this meeting.

I was disappointed that the board members whispered among themselves at a public meeting, so that we had to strain to hear and had to ask to be told what had been decided. I was disappointed that they chose not to answer our questions.

I was particularly disappointed that, when pressed, they said they would not be addressing the three-acre minimum and would not state why.

Why shouldn't the town board be expected to provide reasoning for their decisions? And why are they making it so difficult for Canton residents to grow their own food?

Hannah Harvester, Canton