|
‘Urban Chickens’ idea barely passes
by Gregory R. Norfleet and Gordon Tustin · News · November 30, 2017
A new ordinance to allow and regulate urban chickens barely passed the first reading last week when one council member changed his vote just so the full, five-person council could consider the measure.
City Council member Tim Shields changed his “no” to a “yes” to break a 2-2 tie that would otherwise sink the proposal championed by council member Mary Beth Stevenson.
Council member Colton Miller’s absence from the Nov. 20 meeting meant no tie-breaking vote between Shields and council member Brian Pierce opposing and Stevenson and council member Jordan Ellyson supporting.
Shields said allowing residents to keep chickens on their property may draw foxes and coyotes “and further put other pets in danger.”
He added that residents increasingly report seeing foxes in downtown.
“If it happens, the city may find residents asking for protection for chickens,” he said. “Cats and dogs may get mauled or killed.”
Hoover Elementary fourth-grade teacher Blake Shultice and some of his social studies pupils proposed the idea to the council last school year. The council directed it to the Animal Control Commission, which wrote and passed on to the council Ordinance 748, which amends the city’s Animal Protection and Control regulations to allow the keeping of urban chickens.
“The students got the idea and the council was very receptive,” Shultice explained. “They suggested that we send the proposal to the Animal Control Commission.”
“The Commission really helped us,” the teacher said. “They voted 5-0 to approve the request and drafted the changes into the ordinance.”
It was those changes that went into The Animal Protection And Control Of The City Of West Branch To Allow The Keeping Of Urban Chickens. Among major points are:
• Domestic chickens will be permitted on an R-1 Single Family or an R-2 Two Family District so long as the chickens are kept in strict compliance with the ordinance;
• An application form must be submitted to the city;
• The city will issue leg bands that the permit holder must apply to each chicken;
• No person will be permitted to keep more than five chickens on any contiguous parcels of land;
• No roosters are permitted under the plan.
The City Council will conduct two more public hearings on the proposed changes to the ordinance on Dec. 4 and Dec. 18. The ordinance would take effect after its passage, approval and publication.
Stevenson said the ordinance “looks great” and from her research determined no serious problems from allowing urban chickens.
If chickens are protected, she said, foxes and other predators will move on. She noted that Iowa City allows urban chickens and despite the population, only 20 families hold permits.
“It’s not like the whole town will go out and get chickens,” Stevenson said, noting that one family in West Branch is already grandfathered in. “If there are issues, we can revoke their permit. But I don’t see any big issues.”
Local veterinarian Alan Beyer heads the Animal Control Commission and said the group spoke with other cities that allow chickens, like Marion, Iowa City and Dubuque.
He noted that Dubuque no longer issues permits but does require chickens be put inside at night, clipping wings to prevent flying and no roosters.
Pierce said that of all the issues he has seen come before the council, this issue prompted more feedback from residents.
“They are all very much opposed for numerous reasons,” he said.
Stevenson noted that some families own rabbits, and she sees an “arbitrary line” between that and other small farm animals like chickens.
“Dogs are far more dangerous,” she said.
Mayor Roger Laughlin said he could not decide.
“I’m on the line,” he said. “Who does it hurt?”
Shultice said the ordinance “puts the onus on the owner.”
“It seems airtight to headaches on the city,” he said. “There is explicit language that the city is not liable and there are high-threshold barriers to entry.”
City Attorney Kevin Olson said some cities require proof that the resident notified neighbors, and some require neighbor consent.
Shields said he would change his vote if the ordinance required neighbor consent.
“Then I would like to see we require permission (from neighbors) for dogs,” Stevenson said.
Shields then agreed to change his vote to keep the ordinance alive for at least a second reading to allow Miller a chance to share his point of view at the next council meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
