Earlville continues to play 'chicken' with local law
EARLVILLE – Since 1963, a law has been on the books in the Village of Earlville which prohibits the keeping of farm animals. However, when the village passed an updated local law in 2007 which prevented residents from receiving variances to that law, issues began to arise which are still being addressed two years later.
One village resident, who was cited and found guilty of violating the law, appealed the village court’s decision, and on June 10, the Madison County Court granted his appeal, overturning the lower court’s original ruling. However, the issue of keeping farm animals in the village is far from over.
Michael Kicinski moved to Earlville in 2003, and despite the fact that a law was on the books prohibiting the keeping of farm animals, he was granted a variance, permitting him to keep up to 60 chickens and 125 rabbits. Three years later, Kicinski was granted another variance, allowing him to increase the number of chickens from 72 to 102.
Just a year later, the village passed a new local law, which unlike the previous one, left no room for variances, simply prohibiting all farm animals.
Kicinski explained that a few months after the law was filed, he received a letter saying a resident had filed a complaint; he soon received a ticket and was scheduled for a court appearance. On May 14, Kicinski went to Village of Earlville Court and Justice Frank Faulkner found him guilty of the charge against him and ordered Kicinski to find a home for the chickens and rabbits within the next 30 days. Kicinski was fined $100.
Instead of seeking a home for the animals, Kicinski decided to appeal the court’s decision, citing reasons which include: that Kicinski was not advised of his right to counsel, was not advised of his right to a hearing, no witnesses were sworn and there is no record of their testimony and that no record of the proceeding exists which would suggest evidence of Kicinski’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After receiving no reply from the village, Madison County Court Judge Biagio J. DiStefano granted Kicinski’s appeal.
“They didn’t tell me what the charges were. They didn’t tell me if it was a misdemeanor or an infraction. They just told me I was in violation of the law,” Kicinski said.
The village resident claims the law did not apply to him because of the variances previously granted to him under the 1963 law. “All this time, the mayor and the village board sat back and did nothing to defend their accusations against me,” Kicinski said of the village’s lack of response to the appeal. The village contends that variances to local laws are not legally binding, and they do not believe that argument alone would stand up in court.
When asked if he thought this appeal would allow him to continue housing his chickens and rabbits, Kicinski said he did. “The court’s decision was reversed. The conviction does not stand,” he said.
Village officials aren’t quite as sure. Earlville Code Enforcement Officer Matt VanHusen said that despite the appeal, Kicinski is still in violation of the old law.
When reached for comment, Village Mayor Toni Campbell said the village had not yet received an official record of the Appellate Court’s decision. “As we have not received an official record of the Madison County’s Appellate Court decision, it would be premature of me to comment on the board’s future direction of this continuing violation. However, I believe the local law was drafted, approved and filed through the proper procedures and that the merit of this law is not in question by the Appellate Court.”
Village Clerk Christian Vischi was quick to point out that Kicinski was not the only resident in violation of the law, and other properties will also be addressed. Vischi explained that while the appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision, the local law is still in effect. As far as what the future holds for Kicinski and other residents who currently have prohibited animals, Vischi said the village will have to examine its options. He said by the village board meeting on July 27, he believes they’ll decide how to proceed.
When asked about the future ramifications of the appeal, Vischi said it is his understanding that if the board chooses to reprosecute Mr. Kicinski under the 2007 local law, they will be able to do so.
At this time, Kicinski said he is just happy that justice has been served.
One village resident, who was cited and found guilty of violating the law, appealed the village court’s decision, and on June 10, the Madison County Court granted his appeal, overturning the lower court’s original ruling. However, the issue of keeping farm animals in the village is far from over.
Michael Kicinski moved to Earlville in 2003, and despite the fact that a law was on the books prohibiting the keeping of farm animals, he was granted a variance, permitting him to keep up to 60 chickens and 125 rabbits. Three years later, Kicinski was granted another variance, allowing him to increase the number of chickens from 72 to 102.
Just a year later, the village passed a new local law, which unlike the previous one, left no room for variances, simply prohibiting all farm animals.
Kicinski explained that a few months after the law was filed, he received a letter saying a resident had filed a complaint; he soon received a ticket and was scheduled for a court appearance. On May 14, Kicinski went to Village of Earlville Court and Justice Frank Faulkner found him guilty of the charge against him and ordered Kicinski to find a home for the chickens and rabbits within the next 30 days. Kicinski was fined $100.
Instead of seeking a home for the animals, Kicinski decided to appeal the court’s decision, citing reasons which include: that Kicinski was not advised of his right to counsel, was not advised of his right to a hearing, no witnesses were sworn and there is no record of their testimony and that no record of the proceeding exists which would suggest evidence of Kicinski’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After receiving no reply from the village, Madison County Court Judge Biagio J. DiStefano granted Kicinski’s appeal.
“They didn’t tell me what the charges were. They didn’t tell me if it was a misdemeanor or an infraction. They just told me I was in violation of the law,” Kicinski said.
The village resident claims the law did not apply to him because of the variances previously granted to him under the 1963 law. “All this time, the mayor and the village board sat back and did nothing to defend their accusations against me,” Kicinski said of the village’s lack of response to the appeal. The village contends that variances to local laws are not legally binding, and they do not believe that argument alone would stand up in court.
When asked if he thought this appeal would allow him to continue housing his chickens and rabbits, Kicinski said he did. “The court’s decision was reversed. The conviction does not stand,” he said.
Village officials aren’t quite as sure. Earlville Code Enforcement Officer Matt VanHusen said that despite the appeal, Kicinski is still in violation of the old law.
When reached for comment, Village Mayor Toni Campbell said the village had not yet received an official record of the Appellate Court’s decision. “As we have not received an official record of the Madison County’s Appellate Court decision, it would be premature of me to comment on the board’s future direction of this continuing violation. However, I believe the local law was drafted, approved and filed through the proper procedures and that the merit of this law is not in question by the Appellate Court.”
Village Clerk Christian Vischi was quick to point out that Kicinski was not the only resident in violation of the law, and other properties will also be addressed. Vischi explained that while the appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision, the local law is still in effect. As far as what the future holds for Kicinski and other residents who currently have prohibited animals, Vischi said the village will have to examine its options. He said by the village board meeting on July 27, he believes they’ll decide how to proceed.
When asked about the future ramifications of the appeal, Vischi said it is his understanding that if the board chooses to reprosecute Mr. Kicinski under the 2007 local law, they will be able to do so.
At this time, Kicinski said he is just happy that justice has been served.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks