A Matter of Ducks and Men

Larry Epstein moved into his house in 1985. He bought a handful of pet ducks. No one has ever complained about his ducks. They have, in fact, been a huge hit with the neighborhood kids. He does not eat the eggs. They are his pets, not his food provider. Thirteen years ago he was the victim in a car accident and is now disabled. According to his doctor from Emory, the ducks provide therapy and increase his quality of life. He still has his pet ducks. However, that will likely change on April 10.

In September, 2012, two of Mr. Epstein's neighbors got into a slight altercation in the cul-de-sac that Mr. Epstein lives on. The Police did not issue a ticket, based on the testimonies that he heard. This did not satisfy one neighbor. He wanted Mr. Epstein to claim that he saw things that he did not. When Mr. Epstein refused, the neighbor called Code Enforcement, and turned in Mr. Epstein's ducks. The neighbor did not have an issue with the ducks for the twenty five years that he lived there, but chose to punish Mr. Epstein for not lying to the Police.

Cobb County Code states: Livestock, nondomestic and wild animals, and poultry means animals, nondomestic and wild animals, and species of the avian family which are or may be raised for the purpose of providing food or transportation. They are only allowed on lots two acres or larger. The intent of this law is separate the Farming Community from the Urban Community.

Mr. Epstein has raised these ducks as pets, not as a source of food or a source of income. On February 26, the BOC added a section to the powers of the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow variances for people wishing to have hens on less than two acres, however, it does not include ducks. In an effort to keep his therapy pets, Mr. Epstein has filed for a Variance. The hearing is on April 10.

In the past, the BZA has refused to issue Variance requests concerning animals because they felt it would violate the intent of the law. The Commissioners have now given the BZA the authority to issue Variances for animals, albeit a very specific animal. This would still indicate the Commissioners believe that there are exceptions to the Rules, cases that should be heard in the public eye, and decided by a sense of fairness.

Mr. Epstein's therapy pets do NOT violate the intent of the Livestock ordinance. They are not a neighbor nuisance; quite opposite in fact, providing much enjoyment to Mr. Epstein and the neighborhood.

Mr. Epstein should not lose his therapy pets because a bitter neighbor decided to punish him for being an honest citizen. Mr. Epstein should not have to suffer at the askew interpretation of a forty year old Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Epstein is not a criminal and should not be treated as such. Please, contact the Board of Zoning Appeals and let them know what you think!