Chicken ordinance fowled up

Feathers flew and squawking was heard in the town board chambers last Monday night.

And all for some chickens.

After the Nov. 7 work session, which seemed to resolve the lingering chicken-keeping questions, last Monday’s regular session saw the issue blow up again, and instead of passing an ordinance extending chicken-keeping rights in town for another year, the town board tabled the ordinance until the Nov. 28 meeting.

“There’s been an exorbitant amount of time spent on this,” said board member Kristie Melendez during the discussion.

A proposal to allow the raising of backyard chickens inside town limits was brought to the board during a meeting in April 2010 by Jared and Ashley Schwader. The couple put together a packet of information that debunked myths and suggested regulations for keeping chickens.

The ordinance allowed residents to keep up to six hens, but no roosters, per property in town. Other requirements include the size of coops and neighbor notification if the coop is going to be located less than 15 feet from the property line.

The ordinance was set to sunset on Jan. 1, 2012.

So at the Nov. 7 work session, the town board took a look at the ordinance and agreed on a couple of changes.

The first change defined a chicken as a bird of a certain species from the moment of its birth, to clear up confusion over whether a non-laying chicken was still a chicken.

The second change dealt with coop removal if a chicken-keeping permit was revoked or the owner ceased keeping chickens for six months.

The sunset clause was also retained, meaning the board would discuss whether to keep chickens in town for another year in Nov. 2012.

Town Attorney Ian McCargar also added language bringing the maximum fine up to $1,000, which is in keeping with the rest of the fines charged since the town made the transition to a court of record.

“That’s not to say that amount has to be charged; it’s just the maximum,” McCargar said.

But the discussion went a-fowl last Monday.

Mayor John Vazquez, who was not present for the work session, was concerned about the strict limit on the number of birds.

“It makes sense to me to allow for a certain number of chicks to replace chickens who no longer lay,” Vazquez said. “People need to maintain their flocks.”

Vazquez was also unhappy that the sunset clause had been retained.

“We don’t have any other ordinances with sunset clauses,” he said.

Board member Don Thompson suggested allowing residents to keep several chicks until they reach the age to lay eggs, at which point the previously agreed-upon number of six would kick in.

Board member Robert Bishop-Cotner was not in favor of that suggestion.

“Why did we do this?” he asked. “We were trying to allow people to keep a few chickens, not run chicken businesses.”

There are 28 chicken-keeping permits that have been issued in the town, and of those, three have caused problems. One of those three is currently in municipal court.

Board member Don Shanfelt said he thought the board was creating a code enforcement nightmare.

“Are we going to ask our officers to check out the birds to make sure people are complying?” he asked. “How are you going to enforce this?”

He went on to say that his concern is not about the chicken-keepers who have not caused problems, but those who are.

Melendez suggested taking out all the suggested changes except the one about the fines.

“We can extend this another year and look at it more later if needed,” she said.

Vazquez told the board he would vote no on the ordinance in that case.

“There’s no consideration for future stock, and the sunset clause is not necessary.”

McCargar said he would bring the ordinance back at the end of the month.