No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/02/2008 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2008 AMENDING ITEM NUMBER: 25 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: September 2, 2008 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2008 Amending Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of Farm Animals and Amending Section 4-117 of the City Code Pertaining to Chickens. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a citizen-initiated request for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code. The proposal would amend Section 5.1.2 which is the definition of"Farm Animals." The effect of the change would allow up to six chicken hens in all zones of the City. Chickens are presently included in the Farm Animal definition and, therefore, are allowed only in the zones which allow Farm Animals (RUL, UE,RF). Additional regulatory and nuisance aspects are being added to Section 4-117,the Animal Control section of the City Code since First Reading. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on June 3, 2008, by a vote of 5-2. (Nays: Brown, Troxell) Since First Reading, staff has worked with the Larimer County Department of Public Health, the Larimer County Humane Society, and has researched other nearby communities regarding their experience with allowing chicken hens within an urban area. Information is provided regarding air quality. In addition,the Ordinance has been slightly revised to increase the level of specificity,add a mandatory registration system and a one-year review provision. BACKGROUND During the deliberation at First Reading, Council indicated that more information is needed with regard to a variety of concerns. This background report, and related attachments, summarizes the findings Current Planning, Natural Resources, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Larimer Humane Society. 1. Changes to the Ordinance since First Reading The Ordinance has been revised to demonstrate a higher level of specificity. The provisions that have been added since First Reading include the following: September 2, 2008 -2- Item No. 25 • If a parcel has more than one dwelling,all residents and the owner of the parcel must consent in writing to allowing the chicken hens on the property. • The chicken hens must be provided with a covered,predator-resistant chicken house that is thoroughly ventilated,designed to be easily accessed for cleaning and maintenance, and be at least 2 square feet per chicken in size. • Neither the chicken house nor the outdoor enclosure may be located less than 15 feet from any abutting property line unless one or more adjoining property owners consent in writing to a location that is closer than 15 feet. If such an agreement is reached, the agreed-upon location will be deemed acceptable even if there is a change in ownership of the adjoining properties. • The chicken hens must be shut into the chicken house from dusk to dawn. • During daylight hours,the chicken hens must have access to the chicken house and,weather permitting, also have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to keep out predators. • Stored feed must be kept in a container that is rodent-proof and predator-proof. • Registration is required with the Larimer Humane Society. There will be a one-time fee of $30.00 per parcel. At the time of registration, applicants will be given a four-page informational hand-out from the Latimer County Cooperative Extension Service titled Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock. (Attachment 2) • Chicken hens must not be allowed to come in contact with wild ducks or geese or their excrement. (This provision has been added at the request of the Latimer County Department of Health and Environment.) • There will be an opportunity to review the Ordinance after one year. 2. Larimer County Department of Health and Environment Current Planning has been contact with Dr. Adrienne LeBailly,MD,MPH, Director of the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and her staff. An official written response has been provided(Attachment 3)that addresses nuisance and disease issues. In summary,two points related to nuisance issues and diseases are raised. • Nuisance Manure management of small flocks can in fact be successfully accomplished on a small lot if the owners keep up with the tasks. Composting the manure,use of adequate bedding to keep the coop dry, or frequent disposal in sealed bags in the regular trash service are all common practices that help with the fly and odor issues. September 2, 2008 -3- Item No. 25 • Disease Based on the scale envisioned by the City,backyard chicken flocks are not likely to be a huge public health issue. The most likely health risk is that those who own chickens may be exposed to salmonella and campylobacter which might make chickens undesirable pets for families with young children or individuals with compromised immune systems. Hand washing is important after handling all chickens. There is no highly pathogenic H5N1 avian flu virus in the Western Hemisphere at this time. If this virus becomes endemic in our wild bird population, it would be the owners of the chickens who might be at greatest risk, not the general community unless the virus becomes pandemic. The chances of a pandemic virus originating in Fort Collins is exceedingly small. Preventing backyard flocks from mixing with wild ducks and geese (or their bird droppings) would be important. 3. Methane Gas and Air Quality In response to Council questions, the Department of Natural Resources has provided information regarding the impact of allowing chickens in the urban area and the potential for increasing green house gases. (Attachment 4) In summary,staff finds that methane from non-ruminant animals,such as chickens, is insignificant. For example,if every single family detached house had six hens today,their combined contribution to green house gases in Fort Collins would be only 202,000 kilograms of CO2 equivalent,or 0.009 percent(one-ten thousandths percent—a miniscule amount)of the total green house gas inventory. 4. Wildlife In response to Council questions, the Department of Natural Resources has provided information regarding the impact on wildlife. (Attachment 5) In summary, staff finds data is scarce with respect to an increase in predators in an urban environment due to allowing chickens. The most likely species attracted to a chicken coop would be the red fox followed by raccoon and then coyote(but only at the urban edge). Garbage,pet food, bird feeders and vegetable gardens are likely to attract many more predators than chickens. 5. Registration and Information The Larimer Humane Society will charge a one-time fee of$30 for each household. Information from the Larimer County Cooperative Extension Service will be provided for each registrant. This hand-out is titled Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock. (Attachment 2) 6. Number of Households Estimated to Begin Raising Chickens Council asked for an estimated number of households that could be expected to begin raising chickens. The applicant, Mr. Dan Brown,estimates that there could be up to 150 households. This number is roughly based on the level of interest demonstrated in response to Mr. Brown's website and petition. September 2, 2008 -4- Item No. 25 7. Size of Chicken Coop Without Needing a Building Permit A chicken coop(or garden shed,out-building,etc.)can be up to 120 square feet and up to eight feet in height without needing a building permit. 8. Loveland's Experience Since chicken hens have been permitted in Loveland (as they are in Fort Collins in three zone districts), Council asked what has been the experience with nuisance complaints. Staff asked the Larimer County Humane Society to respond. According to Captain Bill Porter, Animal Control Officer, between January and June of 2008, the Larimer County Humane Society took in 2,853 calls for the City of Loveland during which there have been two complaints for noise (crowing roosters), zero for chicken at-large and zero for wildlife conflicts. Captain Porter emphasized that in Loveland, there is no requirement for chickens to be confined to an enclosure and yet there were zero complaints for chickens at-large. 9. Comparative Study with Other Cities—the Longmont Study The City of Longmont is facing the same issues as Fort Collins. In June 2008, the Longmont Planning Department researched 14 Front Range communities(including Fort Collins)and Boulder County,as well as three major out-of-state cities as to the magnitude and extent of allowing chickens in an urban area. (Attachment 6) (On July 22, 2008, the Longmont City Council directed staff to proceed with an ordinance that would allow chicken hens in the urban area, subject to limitations.) In summary, the study found: • Seven jurisdictions allow chickens and seven do not. Fort Collins was noted as being under consideration due to the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation and Council approval on First Reading. • All jurisdictions prohibit roosters. • Among the cities that allow chickens, there is a wide variety of regulations. • Animal control officers from five cities were interviewed. In almost every case,complaints were associated with crowing roosters. Very few complaints were due to hens. • Of the seven Colorado jurisdictions and three out-of-state cities that allow chicken hens,the number allowed ranges from a low of three to a high of 15. Five jurisdictions regulate the number by a lot size formula or the number is simply unspecified and enforcement falls to the discretion of the Animal Control Officer. 10. End of Life Issues Council expressed a concern about nuisance complaints that may arise due to euthanasia and disposal techniques. September 2, 2008 -5- Item No. 25 In researching this aspect of raising chicken hens, staff has gleaned the following common techniques that would available to a typical urban household: • Donation of a live hen to the Raptor Center. • Utilize the services of a veterinarian or the Humane Society for euthanasia and disposal just as for dogs and cats. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary- June 3, 2008. (w/o original attachments) 2. Latimer County Cooperative Extension Service flyer, Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock. 3. Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, Latimer County Department of Health and Environment response to a request for input about the City's Land Use Code amendment allowing chickens. 4. Department of Natural Resources-the Impact of Allowing Chickens in the Urban Area and the Potential for Increasing Green House Gases. 5. Department of Natural Resources -the Impact of Urban Hens on Wildlife. 6. The City of Longmont Study. 7. Impact of urban chickens on property values - comments from Portland, OR Metropolitan Association of Realtors and Madison, WI Real Estate Association. 8. Backyard Chicken Keeping: Resources and Information. 9. Petition as Demonstration of Support for Urban Hen Amendment. 10. Powerpoint presentation. ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM NUMBER: 29 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 3, 2008 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL S�AFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2008, Amending Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Definition of Farm Animals and Amending Section 4-117 of the City Code Pertaining to Chickens. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. On May 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed Text Amendment and voted 5 —2 to recommend approval. 0 -Irl", -law- _V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (. Y This is a citizen-initiated request for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code. The proposal would amend Section 5.1.2 which is the definition of"Farm Animals." The effect of the change would allow up to six chicken hens in all zones of the City. Chickens are presently included in the definition and,therefore,are allowed only in the zones which allow Farm Animals(RUL,UE,RF). BACKGROUND The Land Use Code allows for a Text Amendment to be initiated by a citizen. Presently, chickens are allowed in the RUL, UE and RF zones, with no restrictions. The request would broaden the allowance to all zones,but subject to limitations. These restrictions would apply to all zones except the RUL,UE and RF and be place ' e al of o the City Code. The limitations would require that only chi ens we w a i f s' . Roosters would be prohibited. Further,chicken hens must be ntained 'thin a encl a at least 15 feet from all property lines. Finally, no slaughtering ul a ed. • Larimer County Humane Society As with all aspects of animal control within the City, the Larimer County Humane Society would be charged with enforcement. The L.C.H.S. has indicated it has no problem with the proposal. June 3, 2008 -2- Item No. 29 • City of Fort Collins Police Department The Police Department opposes the revision due to concerns with disease, noise and the incursion of non-urban pets. l.1 • Staff EvaluationC " Ir Y Staff has worked with the applicant and researched other cities to find a reasonable compromise that would allow the responsible raising of chicken hens and yet protect the peace and quiet of residential neighborhoods. Amending the definition of Farm Animals in the Land Use Code would address the land use issue. The enforcement issue,however,is covered under the Animal Control section of the City Code. The City of Fort Collins Police Department contracts out animal control services to the Larimer County Humane Society which would have primary responsibility for responding to any complaints regarding chicken hens in neighborhoods. Based on input from these enforcement agencies, additional restrictions with regard to chicken hens are added as an amendment to Section 4.117 of the City Code: 1. No more than six chicken hens may be allowed and only for the purpose of producing eggs. 2. No roosters are allowe 3. No slaughtering is allo c 0 P Y 4. Chicken hens shall be kept within a secure enclosure. 5. Enclosures shall be located at least fifteen(15) feet from the nearest property line. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, May 15, 2008. 2. Summary of the Planning and Zoning Board Discussion, May 15, 2008. 3. Applicant's supporting documentation. 4. Letters from citizens. 5. Coloradoan article datirent, 16, 2 8. 6. Map of Zone Districts owi c k S. ATTACHMENT REARING CHICKENS FOR C0110 91 THE FAMILY FLOCK umvcrsia' LARIMER COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Chickens are probably the most The most popular brooders are infrared heat universally accepted livestock on the farm. lamps or electric brooders. Your choice Chickens require little space, a minimum of depends on convenience, installation costs and experience and knowledge, and they're readily operating costs. available at a low cost. Before undertaking P. A poultry house must have feeders. A a poultry project proper feed design avoids feed waste. and deciding The amount of feeder space recommended per upon a breed, one 100 chicks is: must decide just what is expected from the home flock. AGE OF CHICKS FEEDER SPACE Raising chickens for eggs is different than 0-4 weeks 12 linear it or two 3-1 linden raising them for meat. Another reason for 4-8 weeks 20 linear a. or two s-4t tbedeta raising them is to develop a breed for 9-12 weeks 30 Hum 1 or throe 5-1 teems exhibition. Your main purpose for raising 12 weeks&up 40 Haw 1 or four 54 feeders chickens must be decided before a breed can P. Bps of all should have access to be selected. For both meat and egg production, it may be wise to get two plenty.of clean, fresh water. Bear in mind different breeds, one for each type. that water is one of the cheapest sources of nutrients, and over one-half of the bird's Once the breed(s) have been t body determined, decide what age the birds will be. is water. Eggs are composed of about two- Select hatching eggs, day-old chicks, started thirds water- pullets, or mature birds. The size of waterer recommended per 100 chicks is: POULTRY HOUSING & EQUIPMENT AGE OF CHICKS WATERER Sr6E 0-1 week sot 1-qL*wat rem Careful planning is needed to provide 14 weeks Two 2-gallon watarers chickens a good home. Keep in mind these 4-12 weeks Two s-gallon watarers factors and space requirements: P. Roosts are not essential, but are ► Chicks require adequate space and a recommended for most small laying flocks. reliable source of beat (called brooder). The They should not be used for broilers or other following space is recommended: meat birds, as they may cause blisters. AGE OF CHICKS FLOOR.$PACEIBIRD i ff 0-8 weeks 44s sq. 1 Y i ,L ... . .,Y 4-8weeks I 1t 8-12 weeks 2 sq.1 .€ _• ' 12 weeks or longer 21A-3 sq.R.aight broom) 3.3'A sq.1(beavy breeds) •• _ �,.. . ' ,/ i.e. A 10'x 12' brooder house wal take care of 120 chicks,8 ;'N ' ,«( •-`�At'• weeks of age. Cofande MW UMPersW Cooperative Exmrsran FEEDING & NUTRITION The recommended feeding programs for meat birds and laying bird replacements ® F vary widely. Meat birds are fed a high- energy diet throughout their growing period. In the production of meat birds, the goals are rapid growth, heavy weights, and efficient feed conversion from grain to meat. Laying ® B hens, on the other hand, are started on medium- to high-energy starter rations for the first six to eight weeks; then they are changed to a grower diet to accommodate their ® F changing dietary needs. Some possible rations for both meat birds or laying hens are provided below: Meat birds: Meat birds must have access to full feed at all times, and they should be Figure I: Brooder arrangement. encouraged to eat as much as possible, with as little waste as possible. A broiler feeding program can accomplish this by starting out B: Broods stove suspended in the air the first five weeks with a broiler starter F: Feeders arranged in spoke-like fashion containing about 22 percent protein. This W: Waterers feed is replaced with an 18 percent broiler G: Chick guard 18 inches high arranged in finisher from five weeks up to five days prior 4-6 foot diameter circle around brooder to marketing. At this time they should be shifted to a final feed of 17 percent. BEFORE CHICKS ARRIVE Laying bens: Mash, a mixture of finely ground grains, is the simplest approach to ► Remove old litter. Clean and disinfect the feeding layers. It is adaptable to mechanical ceiling, walls, and floor of poultry house. Let feeding and provides a more nearly balanced the house dry thoroughly before putting down diet for layers. new litter. Clean and disinfect aft equipment, including feeders, waterers, and brooders. Both: Grit refers to hard, insoluble materials ► Coves the floor with 6 inches of dry litter. fed to binds to provide a grinding material in Use shavings, sawdust, or other materials that the gizzard. Grit may be useful when binds are readily available, economical and have are fed high-fiber feed ingredients, to aid in good moisture absorbency. digestion. Small stones or granite particles ► Use a chick guard (circular fence about 18 are good grit materials. inches high) to confine birds near the brooder. You may want to start your chicks on (See figure 1) Remove guard after 7 days. antibiotics to help them get a good start. A ► Check all equipment to see that it is ration might contain a coccidiostat (a drug working properly. Operate brooder stoves at used to control the disease, coccidiosis). This least 24 hours prior to chicks arriving. should be used in the ration continuously ► Put out feed and fill the waterers a few throughout the growing period. hours before chicks arrive. When chicks arrive be ready for them. Colorado StMe Unh WO Coapnalhe F-aaobn AFTER CHICKS ARRIVE EGG GATHERING ► Adjust brooder stove to 90-95'F, measured Eggs should be gathered 2 to 3 times a day. 2 inches above the litter at edge of hover. Frequent gathering reduces the number of Maintain this temperature for the first week. dirty eggs and improves the egg quality. Reduce temperature five degrees each week until 70'F is reached. ► Watch chicks closely the first few days to MOLTING see that they are comfortable. They will crowd under the hover if they are too cold Once each year birds renew their plumage. and away from the hover if they are too This process of replacing old feathers with warm. If this occurs, make proper new ones is called molt. Hens usually go adjustments to the brooder. through their annual molt in the late summer, ► Provide plenty of fresh air for chicks. Do fall, or early winter months. When a bird not close house tightly to keep it warm. starts her molt she goes out of production and, Chicks need fresh air, and air is used to carry normally, will not come back into production moisture out of the house. The floor will be until shortly before or just after the molt is dryer and chicks healthier when proper completed. ventilation is provided. P. Keep litter dry, This is important to prevent coccidiosis and other diseases. PROTECTING THE FLOCK Frequent stirring of litter helps keep it dry. Young chicks and growing birds should be protected and isolated from other animals and WHEN TO START LAYING HENS birds. Cats, rodents and numerous wild animals will kill young chickens. These The best time to buy chicks is in late Match, animals can also spread diseases and April, or May, especially for those in norther parasites. They can contaminate and consume climates. Chicks started at that time do not large amounts of poultry feed while being need cold-weather brooding facilities. destructive to the building. Moreover, the pullets will start laying in early fall and will continue laying until around November. As the days get short, egg CANNIBALISM production will drop. The amount of Cannibalism may occur anytime birds are t daylight controls .` ' confined. If possible, buy chicks that have egg production unless been debeaked at the hatchery. Watch for chickens receive early signs such as feather picking, and about 4 hours of artificial light a day. debeak the birds before cannibalism becomes Chicks hatched in winter commence laying in prevalent. You can do this by clipping off the early summer, but may go into a neck molt tip of the top beak with a dog's toe nail and take a vacation the following winter. clippers or an electric debeaking machine. Pullets, which are hatched in late winter or early spring, start to lay in the summer. Those raised late in the spring will not start l �✓��(S.} /' f a N laying until late fall. As a general rule, your chickens will lay their / first eggs anywhere from four and a half to r.r^ 1 six months after being hatched, depending on breed and other factors. it�� coos&stet unWers* CooperalWe Bamwen TERMS Coccidiosis. intestinal infection of birds and domestic animals that is caused by a parasite Hen: a female chicken Rooster. a male chicken Chick: a young chicken Pullet: a hen less than a year old Gestation Period for chickens: 21 days SERVICE IN ACTION FACT SHEETS: 2.501, Vaccination program for chickens in Colorado 2.502, Brooding and space requirements for poultry 2.503, Practical feeding methods for small poultry flocks 2.504. Home mixing of poultry feeds 2.507, Raising poultry the organic way— disease control andfeeding 2.508, Raising poultry the organic way— management and production 2.509, Brooding and rearing chicks for the family flock 2.510, Keeping layers for the family egg Supply 2.511, Constructing a colony care for layers 2.512, Sanitation and disease prevention for poultry Helping You Put Knowledge To Work Colorado State University Cooperative Extension of Larimer County provides practical and/or research based information. The staff and trained volunteers help you help yourself. Information is available in Horticulture, Agriculture, 4-H, Nutrition, Food Safety, Consumer Issues, Youth, Family and Community Development. Let Cooperative Extension help you put knowledge to work. Call the local office at 498-7400. • i # • r • tii ► rrt Prepared by Denise Stapleton, Agriculture Consultant, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension,Larimer County. Information acquired from USDA Fact Sheet: Brooding and Rearing Chicky for the Family Flock and from 4-H Poultry Project(MA20000), Colorado State University. trrrrtri ► rtrr Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 9 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Milan Pewerts, Interim Director of Cooperative Extension,Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. ► rr # # t ► t ► # # t Where Trade Names Are Used, No Discrimination Is Intended,And No Endorsement By Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Is Implied. Colorado Salo Ua&MOY Coopnadve F.UMdOn ATTACHMENT IARIMER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT COUNTY 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins,Colorado 80524-2004 General Health(970)498-6700 Environmental Health(970)498-6775 Fax(970)498-6772 Ted Shepard July 25, 2008 Chief Planner Community Planning and Environmental Services PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Shepard: I am writing in response to your letter requesting input about the City's land use code amendment to allow the keeping of chicken hens with the City. As I understand the proposal, chickens would be allowed in all zones. The code amendments limits the number of chickens to six, prohibit roosters, require a secure enclosure at least 15 feet from the property line, and prohibit slaughtering onsite for all zones except RUL, LIE and RF. From our perspective at the Department of Health and Environment, the issue of backyard chicken flocks includes both nuisance and disease aspects. With regard to nuisance issues, complaints about manure management, flies, odors, and noise would be expected in some cases. We understand that the Larimer County Humane Society would investigate these complaints under contract with the City Police Department. It has been our experience that manure management with small flocks can in fact be successfully accomplished on a small lot if the owners keep up with the task. Composting the manure, use of adequate bedding to keep the coop dry, or frequent disposal in sealed bags in the regular trash service are all common practices that help with the fly and odor issues. The corollary is that a lack of regular attention by the owners can result in a situation where fly and odor problems occur. In this regard, the need for routine care and cleanup is similar for other domestic animals such as dogs. The Larimer County Cooperative Extension developed a brochure titled Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock that contains some helpful advice. I have enclosed a copy for your information. Based on the scale envisioned by the City, we do not believe that these backyard chicken flocks are likely to be a huge public health issue, but there are some cautions and concerns that Council might want to be aware of. The most likely health risk is that those who own the chickens may be exposed to salmonella and campylobacter, which might make chickens undesirable household pets for families with young children or individuals with compromised immune systems. Handwashing is important after handling all chickens. Around Easter, we put out public information trying to discourage people from giving chicks or ducklings as Easter presents, and provided safety tips for folks who plan to have chickens or ducks at home. While such bacterial infections are a concern, it probably contributes comparatively little compared to the unsafe handling of store-bought chickens which people prepare at home. In January 2007, Consumer Reports found over 80% of store-bought(uncooked) chickens harbor campylobacter or salmonella. Ted Shepard July 24, 2008 Page 2 A frequently raised human health question posed to us has to do with bird flu. While there is no highly pathogenic H5N1 avian flu virus in the Western Hemisphere at this time, our local wild waterfowl population can harbor low-pathogenic avian influenza viruses which could spread to chickens. If the backyard chickens contracted an avian flu (which may cause them no symptoms), there is a remote chance that a human in the household could be infected. The theoretical concern is that if a person (or other mammal) is simultaneously infected with a bird flu and a human flu, these two viruses--reproducing in the same cell-- could create a new "hybrid" influenza virus. If this hybrid virus had the ability to spread easily from person to person, it could start an influenza pandemic. For this reason, we encourage all poultry workers to get flu shots each year to reduce this risk, and would make similar recommendations for those who keep backyard flocks. Statistically the chances of this occurring are much greater in countries where many more people live in much closer contact with many more chickens than they would in our community, but theoretically it's not impossible. (This was how the last two pandemic flu viruses evolved in 1957 and 1968, possibly though a swine intermediary, and both viruses originated in Asia. The 1918 Spanish flu appears to have arisen by direct mutation as a bird virus changed to become able to infect humans easily, and is believed to have originated in southwest Kansas, although this cannot be proven.) If H5N1 gets to North American and becomes endemic in our wild bird population, the backyard flock issue could get more interesting. Even then, it would be the owners of chickens who might be at greatest risk, not the general community, unless H5N1 becomes a pandemic virus, and the chance of a pandemic virus originating in Fort Collins is exceedingly small. If a highly pathogenic avian flu virus, or other poultry virus such as Newcastle's disease, were found in a backyard flock in Fort Collins, then the Department of Agriculture would impose some severe measures on all chickens within a certain number of miles of the initial case, ranging from isolation and quarantine up to "depopulation" depending on the circumstances. Preventing backyard flocks from mixing with wild ducks and geese (or their bird droppings) would be desirable, and should be considered for inclusion in any rules for keeping backyard flocks the city may develop. I hope this information is helpful as the City Council considers the code amendment. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-6713 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Adrienne eBailly, MD,IVIPH� Director Enclosure: Rearing Chickens for the Family Flock brochure Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 4 From: Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, Department of Natural Resources To: Cameron Gloss Date: June 6, 2006 Subject: City Council, Meeting of June 3, 2008, Follow-up to Question I understand that a question was raised at the June 3 City Council meeting about the potential impact of urban hens on air quality, especially greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S EPA Web site on methane emission sources (http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html) states that methane emissions from non-ruminant animals is insignificant: "Livestock enteric fermentation. Among domesticated livestock, ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes. In the rumen, or large fore- stomach, of these animals, microbial fermentation converts feed into products that can be digested and utilized by the animal. This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces methane as a by-product, which can be exhaled by the animal. Methane is also produced in smaller quantities by the digestive processes of other animals, including humans, but emissions from these sources are insignificant." The U.S. EPA INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990-2006 (April 2008; USEPA#430-R-08-005) states that ruminant animals are the major emitter of methane because of their unique digestive systems. Ruminant animals have the largest methane emissions of all animals. The report calculates the methane emissions from beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses, sheep, swine and goats; it does not even consider chickens. (See hftp://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08 Agriculture.pdfl Most likely, the impacts of increased urban chickens in Fort Collins would be insignificant on local greenhouse gas emissions, even before considering the net carbon impact which would factor in reduced organic food scrap decomposition and other potential benefits. From: Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner, Department of Natural Resources To: Cameron Gloss Date: June 13, 2008 Subject: Update on Chicken Gas I have taken the liberty of estimating the impact on greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions from urban hens, in order to lend weight to Lucinda's earlier comment, based on USEPA, that chickens are an insignificant source because they are not ruminant animals. Regarding methane from chicken manure, even if ev r/ single-family-detached household had six hens today, their combined contribution to GHG in Fort Collins would be only 202,000 kilograms of CO2 equivalent, or only 0.009 percent of the total GHG inventory. I would also argue that the issue is moot, because an increase in the number of urban hens would be offset by a decrease the number of non-urban hens. I.E., assuming that overall egg consumption would not change, families that take eggs from their own hens would stop buying them from elsewhere. Assumptions, if you need them: 1. methane production = 0.05 kg/hen/year [the median of values mentioned by Councilmember Troxell] 2. number of single-family-detached households = 32,000 [based on 2006 data in Trends Report] 3. total GHG inventory = 2.467,000 tons/year = 2.24 billion kilograms/year [2004 data] 4. calculation: 32,000 households x 6 hens/household x 0.05 kg CH4/hen/year x 21 CO2e/CH4 = 202,000 kg CO2e/year ATTACHMENT 5 From: Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner To: Cameron Gloss Date: June 9, 2008 Subject: Wildlife Impact by Implementing Chicken Hen Ordinance Currently, the red fox can be found in just about every neighborhood in Fort Collins. Red foxes feed on a variety of small prey (mice, squirrels, rabbits, songbirds, ducks, geese, eggs) and they are great scavengers--eating garbage and food left out for pets (1/3 of their diet in some studies of urban foxes) as well as road-killed animals. Certainly, chickens will attract red fox to a particular yard and they will be quite persistent about getting those chickens. It can be very expensive to fox-proof a chicken coop for nightly raids and fox will hunt during the day. When a fox does get into a coop it often goes into a "killing frenzy" and kills as many of the chickens as it can and other chickens can be severely injured by flapping around in the coop. Allowing chickens in Fort Collins could increase the occurrence of foxes within a particular neighborhood if foxes attempt to take the chickens as prey, but would only increase the overall fox population in Fort Collins if they were consistently successful and new chickens were supplied for all those eaten by the foxes. Raccoons are also very common in Fort Collins and almost always just active at night. Their diet is comprised of a higher percentage of plant material than red foxes, but they will eat chicken eggs and can kill and eat chickens but they are not a very efficient predator. However, they are masters of getting into chicken coups with their very dexterous paws. Vegetable gardens, particularly those with corn, would likely attract more raccoons than chickens. Mountain lions (cougars) are big game predators and generally avoid residential areas. In the foothills, they are primarily feeding on deer. Although they certainly could kill chickens, they are not going to be attracted to someone's yard to raid a chicken coop. In rural/mountainous areas, Bobcats are more of a predator of chickens than mountain lions. Black bears also generally avoid residential areas and feed primarily on a wide variety of plant food, although they do eat insects, fish, small mammals, and will scavenge for food (road kills, garbage). Although not impossible that a bear would raid a chicken coop, a bear is more likely to be attracted to bird feeders, pet food, or garbage. One animal you didn't mention is the coyote. Coyotes generally avoid highly urbanized areas, but are found in residential areas on the edges of Fort Collins and will prey on pets and would be a problem for folks that want to have chickens. The best precaution would be to house the poultry at night where coyotes couldn't get to them and build a high, predator-proof pen for the fowl during the day. Coyotes do most of their hunting at night, but like the red foxes they will hunt during the day. could not find any good data sources for an increase in predators in an urban environment due to a change in a law to allow chickens. Certainly, any of the above wildlife species could be attracted to a chicken coop, but the most likely would be the red fox, followed by raccoon and coyote at the urban edge. Garbage, pet food, bird feeders, and vegetable gardens in Fort Collins are likely to attract many more predators than the chickens. Of course, residents who decide to have chickens must adequately protect those chickens from all predators (including domestic cats and dogs) and keep the chicken food in a protected, rodent/animal proof area to avoid conflicts with wildlife. ATTACHMENT 4°g LONa,� CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION c°LOR��o Meeting Date: July 22, 2008 Item Number:RS-11B2 Type of Item: General Business Presented by: Ben Ortiz, Planner, 303-774-4725,ben.ortizC&.ci.lon2mont.co.us Brad Schol,Planning Director, 303-651-8319,brad.scholaa,ci.longmont.co.us SUBJECT/AGENDA TITLE: Backyard Chickens EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Based on a request by Longmont residents to amend the municipal code to allow the ownership of backyard chickens in residential zoning districts, staff did extensive research of the codes from other communities with respect to owning and keeping backyard chickens in residential zoning districts. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1)Take no further action and recommend leaving the Municipal Code Section on Animals as is. 2)Recommend initiating a code amendment to accommodate the ownership of a limited number of hens in residential zoning districts RECOMMENDED OPTIONS: Recommend initiating a code amendment to allow residents to own and keep a limited number of hens in residential zoning districts. FISCAL IMPACT &FUND SOURCE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: Unknown as it may reduce the number of animal control calls by legalizing the ownership of hens, but may increase code enforcement calls due to unsanitary chicken coops. BACKGROUND AND ISSUE ANALYSIS: Tracy Halward and William Baker reside at 2131 Steele Street in Longmont. Their home is in a Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R)zoning district. Ms. Halward and Mr. Baker used to own and keep several hens(no roosters) for the eggs that they produce for their personal consumption. According to the Longmont Municipal Code it is illegal for residents to own and keep hens in residential zoning districts. Ms. Halward and Mr. Baker state that they were cited by the City for owning and keeping illegal hens and they were subsequently forced to get rid of the hens. According to Ms. Halward, none of the neighbors had concerns about the hens. Ms. Halward is requesting that the City consider amending the City code to allow individuals to own and keep hens in their backyards for the eggs that the hens produce as a personal food source. CITY OF LONGMONT MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: Title 7 Animals of the City of Longmont Municipal Code offers little guidance with regard to hens. Specifically, 7.04.130 Prohibited keeping of animals states the following: A. It is unlawful to keep, harbor, care for or possess any animal within the city except: 1. Household pets; 2. Large animals and livestock, as applicable zoning ordinances permit; 3. Birds of prey in the possession of handlers licensed by the state or federal government; or 4. Colorado wildlife receiving care and treatment by a wildlife rehabilitator currently licensed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Not unlike many of the animal codes from other communities, it was necessary to research the City of Longmont's Land Development Code for additional guidance. According to the use regulations found in the Land Development Code §15.04.030.D.4 poultry and therefore hens are regarded as livestock and are only permitted as accessory uses by public and private educational agencies and scientific research facilities (see pages 15.04-50 and 15.04- 51 of the Land Development Code). LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL CODE RESEARCH: Staff researched the municipal codes of 14 front-range communities as well as Boulder County's codes. The communities that staff researched are as follows: • City of Arvada, • City of Lakewood, • City of Aurora, • City of Louisville, • City of Boulder, • City of Loveland, • City of Brighton, • City of Thornton, • City of Broomfield, • City of Westminster, • City of Fort Collins, • City of Wheatridge, and • City of Frederick. • Boulder County. • City of Lafayette, In addition to the above Colorado communities, staff researched cities outside of Colorado that are known to allow owning and keeping hens. Three major cities were included in this research. They are: Madison,Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California. Lastly, staff conducted internet research on the issue of owning and keeping chickens as well as chickens as a locally grown food source as part of a larger sustainability movement. FINDINGS: What is clear is that there is little consistency in how chickens are regulated with the exception of roosters. For the most part, roosters are either banned outright in most communities or the potential problems associated with roosters are addressed through a noise or nuisance clause. 2 Among the 15 Colorado communities, seven(7) of the communities allow the ownership of chickens in residential zoning districts. Fort Collins is currently considering changing its ordinance to allow individuals to own up to six(6) hens in all residential zoning districts. The City of Fort Collins Planning &Zoning Commission recommended in a 5—2 vote to allow individuals to own and keep hens in residential zoning districts. The Fort Collins City Council is expected to make a decision on second reading which is anticipated for September 2nd. The remaining seven(7)communities do not allow residents to own and keep chickens in residential zoning districts. It must be noted,however, that of the communities that do not allow hens to be owned and kept in residential zoning districts, many do allow chickens to be owned and kept in agricultural districts. Attachment A shows a listing of the Colorado communities and how the code is applied with regard to the owning and keeping of hens. Staff contacted animal control officers for the Cities of Arvada, Brighton, Lafayette, Louisville, and Loveland in order to understand their thoughts and experiences with regard to chickens. In almost every case, complaints were associated with crowing roosters and they receive very few to no complaints because of hens. Louisville's Animal Control Officer raised a concern with regard to the likely increase of predators should the prevalence of chickens increase,however, her concern was primarily speculative. Virtually all of the animal control officers I interviewed take a reactive approach to enforcing their respective animal codes. That is, they do not act until a complaint is received even though it may be common knowledge that residents own illegal hens. Because very few complaints are generated by hens, animal control officers spend little time enforcing the local codes with regard to illegal hens and most of the animal control officers interviewed feel the restrictions on hens are not warranted. Outside of Colorado, three major Cities were researched with regard to how they regulate chickens. They include Madison, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California. Attachment B shows how the code is applied in these communities. Madison, Wisconsin allows up to four chickens as an accessory use in 14 of the 15 zoning districts as long as the principal use in the residential district is a single-family dwelling. Roosters are specifically banned and no person may slaughter a chicken. Chicken coops are required and the enclosure must be located no closer than twenty-five(25)feet to any residential structure on an adjacent lot. The owner of the chicken must obtain a license. Portland, Oregon, allows up to 3 chickens in any residential zoning district assuming the chickens do not constitute a nuisance. Owning more than three chickens would require a permit. Oakland, California's codes prohibits the keeping of certain animals in an apartment house, hotel and business district. The prohibition includes chickens. Roosters are unlawful within the City limits. The prohibitions noted above, do not apply to residential zoning districts, however. The only regulation as it applies to hens in residential zoning districts has to do with spacing requirements of the chicken coop in relation to any dwelling, church or school. Specifically, it states the following: "It is unlawful for any person to keep any ducks, geese, chickens or other fowl in any enclosure in the city unless the exterior boundaries of said enclosures are more than (20)feet from any dwelling, church or school. " Urban fanning, which includes keeping hens for the eggs and meat, appears to be a growing phenomenon in Colorado and across the country. Several websites provided a variety of information specifically with regard to raising chickens, chicken coops, City's where chickens 3 are/are not allowed, etc. The first is Mad City Chickens which is a site devoted to owning, raising and caring for chickens in the City of Madison, Wisconsin. The web site can be found at httn://madcitychickens.com/index.html. Another web site entitled"The City Chicken"provides a listing of City's throughout the United States that both allow and disallow owning chickens. The web site can be found at the following address: htto://home.centurvtel.net/thecitvchicken/index.html. A third site entitled the Boulder Sustainability Education Center is a local non-profit which focuses on offering classes in sustainable living skills including things like xeriscaping,backyard beekeeping,homemade cheesemaking and backyard chickens. The web site for the Boulder Sustainability Education Center can be found at the following address: http://bouldersustainability.ore/programs.html. Lastly,the Just Food City Chicken Project helps people legally and safely raise chickens for eggs in New York City. By working in partnership with their network of urban gardeners and other organizations,Just Food has launched an initiative to: • Promote best practices and the benefits of raising chickens in the city, • Teach people how to build coops that are structurally sound and healthy for hens, • Publicize relevant city regulations and codes, and • Support gardeners who are interested in setting-up or expanding egg production operations. Just Food's web site can be accessed at http://www.iustfood.org/citvfanns/chickens/. PROS ASSOCIATED WITH ALLOWING HENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: • Hens provide a fresh, locally produced, and inexpensive source of food to families at a time when food prices are increasing in relation to increases in fuel, shipping, and packaging costs. • Hens eat food scraps, dandelions, mice, and insects and may contribute to reductions in the waste stream. • The hen droppings may be used as a natural fertilizer which may be used in backyard gardens. • Eggs from backyard chickens are more nutritious than factory-produced eggs. CONS ASSOCIATED WITH ALLOWING HENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: • The presence of chickens may attract predators and critters such as foxes and raccoons into residential neighborhoods putting pet animals like dogs and cats at greater risk of attack. • May lead to unsanitary conditions due to owner neglect. • Hens may take flight in short bursts and are capable of clearing a six foot privacy fence. • There may be an increase in complaints associated with roosters. When individuals buy chicks,they will not be able to distinguish between a hen and rooster. Owners may form an 4 attachment with the roosters that were raised from chicks and express a reluctance to give them up. CONSIDERATIONS: Should a code amendment be recommended, the updated code should include a number of items: 1)the code update should clearly distinguish between the animals that are allowed in the City and those that are not, 2) a limit on the number of hens one can own should be set, 3)roosters should be banned outright, 3)predator-proof coops or structures should be required and a minimum(humane) size of the structure should be defined, 4) a nuisance clause should be added to address issues associated with animals such as noise, 5)to insure that the coops,pens,dog runs, and other animal structures are kept clean,maintaining an acceptable level of sanitary conditions should be required, 6) a minimum distance from residential dwellings should be identified, and 7) a prohibition on slaughtering chickens should be included. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Colorado Communities Code Research Findings Attachment B: Out-of-State Code Research Findings Attachment C: Memo to Brad Schol from Ben Ortiz re Code Research on Chickens 5 � ƒ � • } � ) e # D � Ik � E -m ka - \ �kJ k7k sk \ / 2 / 2 « raL k « 7 � § k a k § j7 a J � k $ k £ a ca 1 :1312 « . in 2isz 3 ` ■ 2 « : . 7 � ° \ k /c , f � coz>— 2 « \ƒ 2 « \ « « II ` @ a _ � k Ise7 CM CL 2ID ■ # § � � § # - § � ■ 7 Q 3 � � a� o �k 0 005z J E / k k § \ sa ; a oa » z § 6 c� . / / D ) n mt ? � � k u ° § § 1-- J ■ � « § .00 @ o 46 §S < » - 0 k N ` a � . � 24 ° kkkk a © oo 0'a # ] � E O0o2 ATTACHMENT C Si LO�rG DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Development Services Center/Longmont,CO 80501 OR ADO (303) 651-8330/Fax#(303) 651-8696 E-mail: longmontplannin i.lonemont.co.us Web site: http://www.ci.longmont.co.us MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Schol FROM: Ben Ortiz DATE: June 10, 2008 RE: Regulations in other communities regarding the ownership of hens in residential zoning districts Background: Tracy Halward resides at 2131 Steele Street in Longmont. Her home is in a PUD-R zoning district. She used to keep several hens (no roosters)for the eggs that they produced for her and her husband's personal consumption. Owning hens in the City of Longmont is illegal. Her household was cited by the City and they were subsequently forced to give up their hens. None of the neighbors had any concerns about the hens according to Ms. Halward. Tracy requested that the City consider amending the City code to allow individuals to own and keep hens in their backyard for the eggs that they produce as a personal food source. The chickens were fed food scraps and the droppings were used for compost. According to Tracy, each hen would lay approximately one (1) egg per day and four hens would be adequate to meet her household's egg consumption needs. City of Longmont Municipal Code and Land Development Code Title 7 Animals of the City of Longmont Municipal Code offers little guidance with regard to hens. Specifically, 7.04.130 Prohibited keeping of animals states the following: A. It is unlawful to keep, harbor, care for or possess any animal within the city except: 1. Household pets; 2. Large animals and livestock, as applicable zoning ordinances permit; Revised on June 13, 2008 3. Birds of prey in the possession of handlers licensed by the state or federal government; or 4. Colorado wildlife receiving care and treatment by a wildlife rehabilitator currently licensed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Not unlike many of the communities I researched, it was necessary to research Longmont's Land Development Code with regard to animals for additional guidance. According to the use regulations found in the Land Development Code §15.04.030.D.4 poultry and therefore hens are regarded as livestock and are only permitted as accessory uses by public and private educational agencies and scientific research facilities (see pages 15.04-50 and 15.04-51 of the Land Development Code). Follow up calls with City of Longmont Animal Control officers yielded some additional information with regard to the extent of the problem with regard to back yard chickens. According to Animal Control Officer Tammy Deitz (x3004), the majority of the complaints they receive have to do with crowing roosters. Occasionally, Animal Control will get complaints about hens, but when one considers the context of the complaint, one can hardly call the complaints legitimate. In many cases, a neighbor would be turned in because someone is mad at them for a reason other than the hen, but the hen was the excuse to retaliate against their neighbor. In other cases, residents were directed to give up their chickens and the person forced to give them up subsequently turn in other chicken owners. These individuals take the position that: "if I can't have my chickens, no one can!" Some of the complaints around chickens are legitimate. Chickens can fly at short bursts and are capable of reaching sufficient altitude to clear a six-foot privacy fence. Animal Control occasionally receive complaints about an errant hen flying into a neighbor's yard, but the problem isn't a pervasive one. According to Animal Control Officer Tammy Deltz, she personally supports owning backyard chickens, however, she also states that if backyard chickens are allowed, there should be certain regulations associated with keeping them. There should be a ban on roosters. The household that keeps chickens must also provide a secure coop to protect the chickens from predators. The coops must be kept clean, and there should be a reasonable limitation to the number of chickens that one can own. Lastly, Tammy asked that if the code is amended to allow for backyard hens, she asked that Animal Control be consulted prior to any code amendment being proposed for City Council's consideration. I researched several municipal codes from surrounding communities regarding their approach to the keeping of chickens in residential zoning districts. Many of them included definitions with regard to things like aggressive animals, cats, dogs, livestock, pet animals, etc. When definitions were provided at the beginning of each community's code sections with regard to pet animals, livestock, exotic animals, prohibited animals, etc. a clearer picture was presented. While subsequent code research was typically necessary, the codes with definitions substantially clarified the differences between the animals being regulated. By contrast, Title 7 of the City of Longmont's municipal code Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 2 does not have any definitions with regard to animals and offered very little by way of direction on how chickens are regulated. Research Methodology The first step in my research involved finding out how communities in Colorado are addressing. poultry. This aspect of the research involved researching the section on animals in the municipal codes In addition to the zoning codes. When my answers couldn't be clearly answered by the code research, I contacted code enforcement departments or animal control departments. The communities that I researched included the following: City of Arvada • City of Aurora • City of Boulder • City of Brighton • City and County of Broomfield City of Fort Collins City of Frederick City of Lafayette • City of Lakewood • City of Louisville • City of Loveland • City of Thornton • City of Westminster, and City of Wheatridge Boulder County The second step included researching communities outside of Colorado. Lastly, web sites devoted to backyard chickens, urban farming, and local sustainability measures were Included. Revised on:06/23/2008,06/24/2008 3 STEP 1: LOCAL COMMUNITY RESEARCH In this report I chose to include the verbatim language from many of the City's codes In since this process may result in changing our code. Should the code be changed, it will be relatively easy to borrow the language of the communities that I have already researched from this report. City of Arvada Of all of the City's codes that I researched, the City of Arvada's regulations appear to be the most liberal with regard to keeping hens in residential zoning districts. Section 14-3 Definitions categorizes hens in the following manner: "Rabbits, poultry, and domestic fowl Includes rabbits,pigeons, peacocks, chickens, chicks, capons, ducks, geese, turkeys, doves, squabs, and all s/mllar domestic fowl other than pet animals." Hens are regulated in 14-126.b which regulates the accumulation of animals. It states: "CJn add/tlon to the limits set forth above, no person or household shall own or have custody of more than 15 small animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, or the like more than for months of age." Roosters are not included in the above definition as they would be considered a nuisance animal as defined in Section 15-43 Nuisance animals. A resident is allowed to own hens in all residential zoning districts with some caveats. Section 14-123.b regulates the distance of animal shelters for rabbits, poultry, or domestic fowl from houses. It states: "No person shall keep any rabbits, poultry or domestic fowl, other than pet animals, within 35 feet of any building in use or occupied by any person other than the residence of the person keeping such animal or animals, poultry, or domestic fowl.' According to Arvada's animal control officer, Arvada hasn't received any complaints associated with hens in several years. However, due to a recent complaint over a crowing rooster, the limitation of small animals that one can accumulate is expected to be reduced from 15 to 2 should City Council act on a proposed ordinance aimed at reducing the number of small animals that one can own. It is also anticipated that roosters will be banned entirely in the near future should the proposed ordinance pass. The City of Aurora The City of Aurora defines chickens as livestock: "Livestock means any domesticated animal, including but not limited to equine, bovine genus, ruminatia, sheep, goats, pigs, peacocks, turkeys, chickens,pigeons, ducks, geese, ratite or other poultry or fowl or mink. (0ty Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, Chapter 14—An/mats, Section 14-1. DeBnitlons)." Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 4 According to section 14-8.9.b: "Livestock as defined in section 14-1 is not permitted unless allowed by zoning district pmwslons in chapter 146." I was not able to find the zoning codes. Consequently, I phone Cheryl Conway, Public Information Officer in Aurora's Animal Care Division, and she informed me that hens are only allowed in areas zoned agricultural and are not allowed in any residential zoning districts. City of Boulder Neither Chapter 6-1 Animals, nor chapter 9-6 Use Standards offer much guidance with regard to owning and keeping chickens. What little information there is comes from Chapter 6-1. Chapter 6-1-7 Improper Care of Animals Prohibited makes mention of fowl and poultry. Specifically the section states the following: "No person owning or keeping an animal shall fall to provide it with minimum care and to keep it under conditions under which its enclosure is not overcrowded, unclean, or unhealthy. (a)An animal/s deprived of minimum care if it/s not pmAded with care suficient to preserve the health and well-being of the animal considering the species, breed, and type of animal and, except for emergencies or circumstances beyond the reasonable control for the guardian, minimum care includes, but/s not limited to, the fol/owing requirements: (1)Food sufflaent quantity and quality to allow for normal growth or maintenance of body weight. (2) Open or adequate access to potable water In sufficient quantity to satisfy the an/mals needs Snow or ice is not an adequate water source, Fowl shall at all times be provided receptades kept constantly filled with clean water. (3)In the case of pet or other domestic animals other than livestock or poultry, access to a bam, doghouse, or other enclosed structure sufficient to protect the animal from wind, rain, snow, or sun and which has adequate bedding to protect against cold and dampness (4) Vetennary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person to relieve distress from injury, neglect, or disease. (b)An enclosure is overcrowded unless its area is at least the square of the following sum for each animal conf/ned therein: the sum of the length of the animal in inches (tip to nose to base of tale)plus six Inches (c)An enclosure/s unclean when it contains more than one days elimination of each animal endosed therein. (d)An enclosure is unhealthy when it is IWO to cause Illness of the animal." Unreasonable noise associated with animals is also addressed in 6-1-19 Barking, Howling, or Other Unreasonable Animal Noise Prohibited. Paragraph (a) reads as follows: Revised on: 06/23/2008,06/24/2008 5 "No person owning or keeping any animal shall fall to prevent such animal from disturbing the peace of any other person by loud and persistent or loud and habitual barking, howling, helping, bray/ng, whinnying, crowing, calling, or making any other loud and persistent or loud and habitual noise, whether the animals on or off the guardlan s or keepers prem/ses" Additional guidance than what was provided above could not be found. Calls to the City of Boulder were not returned. City of Brighton The City of Brighton does not clearly define fowl as either livestock or pet animals. According to the definitions Livestock means "animals commonly regarded as farm animals, including, but not limited to cattle, horses, goats, llamas, ostriches and sheep, but exduding pet animals such as rabbits, ducks, pigeons and doves" Pet animals or domesticated animals mean "dogs, cats, rodents, birds, reptiles, fish, potbellied pigs welgh/ng less than seventy(70)pounds, and any other species of animal which is sold or retained as a household pet, but does not include skunks, nonhuman primates and other species of wild, exotic or carnivorous animals that may be further restricted in this Article." In both definitions, poultry an/or fowl are absent. A phone call to the Animal Control department and a subsequent discussion with Officer Julie Sanders (303) 655-2091 confirmed that residents are allowed to own up to 4 hens or ducks in all residential zoning districts including high density residential zoning districts. There is no requirement to keep the hens or ducks in pens or coops as long as the fowl are kept in the resident's yard and not allowed to run free. Roosters are not allowed due to the noise they generate. City of Broomfield There is one relevant section with regard to the discussion of hens in Broomfield: Section 6-24-010.13 Animals prohibited within city designated; exceptions: W is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, possess, or harbor any livestock or fowl such as, but not limited to, horses, mules, donkeys, burros, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, chickens, geese, ducks, or turkeys within the residential and urbanized areas of the dty, provlded, however, that this section shall be coordinated with the city zoning ordinance, wherein certain animals and numbers thereof may be permitted within certain zon/ng districts" For further guidance, I researched the zoning codes to determine which zoning districts allow for chickens. Revised on: 06/23/2008,06/24/2008 6 In the area zoned Rural Residential (R-R), chickens (hens & roosters) are permitted by right and an individual may own up to 30 per acre. The minimum lot area allowed is 2.25 acres in the R-R zoning district. In the area zoned Estate District (E-3) according to 17-13-020.1) Permitted uses; by right: "The total number of the animals permitted by this chapter on any single lot, excepting chickens and ducks but including horses, shall not exceed three per acre or any fiaction thereof, and animals born on the property may remain on the property in excess of the allowed numbers until fowl reach the age of four months and other animals reach the age of eight months" According to 17-13-040.A Permitted uses: up to 5 chickens (no more than one rooster), may be allowed in the E-3 district after review and upon approval by the land use review commission. The E-3 district lot size requirements include a minimum lot size of one acre. Town of Frederick The Town of Frederick has an outright ban on chickens within the town's limits. According to Section 7-120 Prohibited Animals: "No person shall keep or harbor within the Town limits any animal that may reasonably and generally be categor/zed as fowl, rabbit, livestock or wild animal, except as herein provided, and except rodent, cats, and birds commonly kept w/thin the home." City of Fort Collins Chickens are defined as farm animals by the City of Fort Collins and are only allowed in three zoning districts: Rural Land, Urban Estate, and Rural Foothills. A description of the above three districts could not be found. A recent petition to amend the City's code by a Fort Collins resident, would allow residents to have up to six chickens in a coop. The request was recently approved by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission and is now scheduled to go to City Council for their consideration. Roosters would not be included due to the noise they generate and residents would not be able to raise chickens for slaughter. City of Lafayette According to Table 26-A District Use Regulations: the following are considered "permitted" uses in virtually all residential zoning districts: Household pets, not exceeding three (3) each of dogs, cats, and one other species of household pet. This limitation applies to rabbits, but does not apply to other household pets customarily housed in a cage, aquarium or similar enclosure. The definitions as they relate to chickens are not clear as livestock is defined as "cattle, swine, sheep, goats and such horses, mules, asses, and other animals associated with Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 7 or used in a farm or ranch."A definition for"pet animals"was not included. As such the only other use category In which chickens would be included would be"Animals." Animals other than household pets are not allowed uses In most residential zoning districts with the exception of the Rural Estate Residential (RE-1) and Rural Residential (RE-2) where animals other than household pets, while not permitted uses, may be obtained through special review, I phoned and spoke with C.S.O. officer, Chris Branigan at 303-665-5571 and she confirmed that hens are considered to be livestock (not pet animals) by the City of Lafayette. According to Officer Branigan, she has never received any complaints from residents due to hens even though she knows of many residents that live in residential zoning districts that own and keep hens at their homes. I also learned that Officer Branigan is a Longmont resident that lives in Old Town and she would be supportive of allowing residents to own hens In the City of Longmont and would be willing to speak before City Coundl on behalf of a code amendment allowing Individuals to own hens. City of Lakewood According to the definitions found in 16.01.010 an animal is defined as "any animal brought into domestic use by man so as to live and breed in a tame conddion, indud/ng, but not limited to dogs, cats, other household pets, horses, livestock, and animals generally regarded as farm or ranch animals" In the Residential One Acre (R1A), Rural Residential (RR) with a minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet, and Large Lot Residential (1-R) with a minimum lost size of 12,500 square feet the keeping of fowl, with the exclusion of emus and ostriches are considered,accessory uses. According to the zoning code in the R1A, RR, and 1-11 zoning districts: "Poultry and pigeons are permitted and may be kept without regard to number as long as they are in a fenced area or private poultry houses and pigeon coops, with no more than four hundred(400)square feet of gross floor area, rabbits and chinchillas are permitted and may be kept without regard to number as long as they are/n a fenced area or private rabbit and chinchilla hutches with no more than one hundred(100)square feet of gross floor area. Al/such houses, coops and hutches must be set back fifteen (15)feet from the side and rear property/Ines and one hundred(100) feet from the front lot line. Owners ofpigeons shall be allowed to exercise, train, and race their pigeons outside the coop as long as the pigeons do not create a public nulsance." Fencing requirements with regard to containing livestock and fowl are also the same in the above-named zoning districts: 'Any fence that serves to contain livestock and fowl shall be constructed of permanent materials, well maintained and of suli'ldent strength and height to confine any anima/located on the property. If any livestock animal is not found to be confined on the subject property, as determined by the Director, and/or If livestock animal has damaged or Is damaging property on adjacent property(les)a corral or riding ring shall then be setback a minimum of eight(8) feet from the property line." Revised on: 06/23/2008,06/24/2008 8 Lastly sanitary conditions in all thee zoning districts are similarly regulated: "The accumulation of manure by any means shall not be permitted within one hundred(100) feet of the front lot line or within fifteen (I5) feet of the side and rear lot lines Manure stored in a pile or piles shall be screened as to not be in view from any adjacent private property, from any adjacent public thoroughfare, or from areas of public access and shall be treated so as to not create a nuisance. Any containment area and/or manure pile shall be kept so as to not attract Nles, create excessive odors, and so as to not cause a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of human beings and/or animals Manure pile(s)shall be removed from the property at a m/n/mum of once every fourteen (14)days. Drainage improvements shall be provided by the property owner to protect an adjacent properly, water body, river, stream, or storm sewer from runoff containing contaminants resulting from animal waste." Louisville Section 16.16.020.A Keeping of certain animals prohibited: "It is unlawful for any person to maintain or to keep any cattle, sheep, goats, swine, chickens, horses or other livestock within the city, except in areas zoned for such use as provided in the zoning regulations The keeping of such animals within areas of the city not specifically excepted herein Is declared a nuisance." Section 16.16.020.E states: 7t is unlawful for any person to maintain or to keep more than three ducks,geese or turkeys, or any combination thereof, within the city in areas zoned for such use as provided in the zoning regulations The keeping of more than three fowl within areas of the city not specifically excepted herein is declared a nuisance. The zoning regulations offered little guidance, consequently I phoned Code Enforcement Officer Laura Labato with the Louisville Police Department at (303) 666- 6531 in order to get clarification on the code and which zoning districts chickens would be allowed. I was directed by Officer Labato to the Use Group Matrix which is found in Section 17 of the Municipal Code. Because the animals listed in Section 16.16.020.A above (including chickens) are not specifically allowed in any residential zoning district, then residents may not have chickens in any residential zoning district within The City of Louisville. The City of Louisville Is beginning to get some complaints regarding chickens. The complaints, however, are related to the noise associated with roosters. Officer Labato raised a separate concern with regard to keeping chickens. She states that there is a great deal of wildlife in and near Louisville including mountain lions and foxes that would be drawn to a residence if livestock were allowed. It would then logically follow that this would lead to an Increase in attacks on pet animals including dogs and cats. Revised on: 06/23/2008,06/24/2008 9 City of Loveland According to Section 6.28.010 Limitations on the number of household pets: "No person shall keep, house or maintain, in or upon any dwelling unit more pet animals over four months of age than can be property maintained in a healthy condition without presenting a health or safety hazard to the owner, keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the occupants of neighboring properties" According to 6.28.020 Limitations on livestock: "No person shall keep,pasture, house, or maintain on any parcel of land in the city any Uvestock, except horses, provided that at least one-half acre ofpasture land is provided for each horse. Pets or show animals, chickens, ducks, geese and other domesticated fowl are permitted subject to the numerical limitations/n section 6.28.o10. The keeping of livestock and domestic fowl except as provided/n this section is declared to be a nuisance." The limitation on the number of animals that one may keep in or upon any dwelling unit is subject to interpretation. According to Larimer County's Animal Control Division, as long as the animals are kept healthy, are confined to the owner's property and do not pose a health or safety hazard to the owner, keepers or others, then there is no limit to the number one can one. City of Thornton Poultry are included in the definition for"Livestock"along with horses, mules, cattle, burros, swine, sheep, goats, and rabbits (see Article 1, section 6-1. Definitions). According to Section 6-21.a: "Generally. No horses, mules, sheep, cattle, swine, goats or other livestock, rodents, chickens, pigeons, turkeys or peacocks shall be kept or maintained within the corporate/units of the Oty in residential zone districts No geese or other fowl shall be kept or maintained in residential zone districts.." Section 6-21.b (2) Residential Estate District reads: "No more than a combined total often rabbit,, ducks and/or chickens shall be permitted to be kept per lot. No more than a combined total of three horses, cattle, goats, llamas and sheep shall be kept per acre of lot, with a maximum of four such animals permitted and subject to the following conditions: a. All manure shall be disposed of promptly so as not to constitute a health or odor problem or other condition ofpubl/c nuisance, and b. Al/livestock shall be kept within a fenced area" According to the Section 18-187 of the zoning code: "[t]he Residential Estate District is necessary to provide many of the amenities of a rural environment where large lots are desirable or necessary because of env/ronmenta/conditions or indigenous development." The minimum lot size allowed in the Residential Estate district for residential use is one acre, when served by City water and sewer or a combination of City water and septic system or City sewer and wells. Minimum lot area for a residential use is 2.5 acres when served by both well and septic system. Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 10 City of Westminster The municipal code definitions include a category for domestic animals and a separate category for livestock. Domestic animals are defined as: "Domesticated dogs, cats, rabb/ts, guinea plgs, hamsters, rats, mice, ferrets, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, except livestock and exotic endangered and prohibited animals" Livestock is defined as: 'Any animal commonly kept or harbored, as a source of food, hides, income through agricultural sale, as a pack animal or draft animal or for use as transportation. Livestock includes, but is not iimited to, horses, mules, sheep, goats, cattle, swine, chickens, ducks, geese pigeons, turkeys, pea fowl, guinea hens, and bees. In the event of uncertainty concerning whether a particular anima/is a species of livestock, the presumption shall be that such animal is a species of livestock until the owner of such animal proves by a preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of the Municipal Court that the animal is not a species of livestock." According to 6-7-12.B: "It shall be unlawful to keep or maintain livestock in residential, business, commercial and industrial zone districts, and Planned Unit Developments unless specifically allowed in the PUD, excepting that livestock shall be permitted in parcels coned 0-1 or in parcels of 10 acres or more/n size in all zoning districts prior to commencement of construction on the parcel. In any case the number of animals kept in a PUD shall not exceed the number permitted by the provisions of the Of lal Development Plan. Livestock, excluding fowl, shall have one-half acre ofpasture available for each animal" The City of Wheatridge According to the definitions found in Section 4-1 a domestic animal means any dog, cat or livestock. Domestic animals are further enumerated to include Psitocine birds, aviary finches, etc., farm birds, (ducks, geese, swans, and poultry.) In the table of uses for Residential Zones, household pets are limited to no more than 3 dogs and 4 cats plus their unweaned offspring. In addition, household pets are categorized as"Accessory Uses"for all residential zoning districts as well as in the Agricultural and Public Facilities Districts. In the latter districts, household pets are limited to no more than 3 dogs and 4 cats. There are two agricultural zoning districts: A-1 and A-2. In both districts 'general fanning and raising or keeping of stock, bee keeping,poultry or small animals such as rabbits or chinchillas"are considered permitted uses. Boulder County Boulder County restricts the owning of poultry to 7 districts. They are as follows: • Forestry (F), Agricultural (A), Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 11 • Rural Residential (RR), • Estate Residential (ER), • Light Industrial (LI), • General Industrial (GI), • Mountain Institutional (MI). The codes stipulate 1 acre lots for both the RR and ER districts. In both of the above residential districts 2 animal units per acre are allowed. Table 18-108 Animal Units of the definitions states that 50 poultry constitute 1 animal unit. Thus, 100 chickens may be kept in both the RR and ER districts. The districts classified as suburban residential, multifamily, manufactured home, transitional, business, and commercial do not allow any animal units Including poultry. I followed up the initial research of Boulder County's codes with a phone call to Pete Fog (303) 441-3930. Pete Fog is a Senior Planner with Boulder County's Planning Department. I discussed the City of Longmont's project and asked about Boulder County's sustainability efforts as they relate to local food production. He referred me to Goal 13 of Boulder County's Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element which was adopted by the Boulder County Planning Commission in May of 2007. Goal 13 States: "fie County should promote and suppon`the use of local products, technologies, expertise, and other locally available resources that contribute to the advancement of these goals(pg. 8)•" Pete Fog noted that Goal 13 would facilitate local food production as part of a larger sustainability effort. However, there has been little direction from the County Commissioners in this area. The County Commissioners have been focusing the majority of their efforts on energy consumption. Revised on: 06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 12 STEP 2: OUT OF STATE RESEARCH I researched the codes in three major out-of state cities where it was known that chickens are allowed by the local regulations. These include Madison, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California. The City of Madison,Wisconsin In Madison, Wisconsin there are 15 residential zoning districts. In all, but one residential zoning district chickens are allowed as accessory uses. In the R5 residential zoning district chickens are not allowed because single family dwellings are not pennitted uses in this district and the owning of chickens is allowed in part on the condition that the principal use is a single-family dwelling. Therefore in the zoning districts that allow for different housing types, chickens would only be allowed on lots where the principal use is a single-family dwelling. Madison's regulation allows for the keeping of up to four (chickens), provided that: I. The principal use is a single-family dwelling ii. No person shall keep any rooster. III. No person shall slaughter any chickens. iv. The chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be kept in the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure at all times. V. No enclosure shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any residential structure on an adjacent lot. vi. The owner or operator obtains a license. The City of Portland, Oregon Portland, Oregon's code defines chickens as"livestock" (see Chapter 13.05 Specified Animal Regulations). Specifically, 13.05.005.0 states: "Livestock means animals including, but not limited to, fowl, horses, mu/es, burros, asses, cattle, sheep, goats, llamas, emu, ostriches, rabbits, swine, or other farm animals excluding dogs and cats:" The only guidance with regard to chickens comes from 13.05.015 Permit Required for Specified Animal Facility. Paragraph E states: '[a]person keeping a total of three or fewer chickens, ducks, doves, pigeons, pygmy goats or rabbits shall not be required to obtain a specified animal facility permit. If the Director determines that the keeper is allowing such animals to roam at large, or is not keeping such animals in a clean and sanitary condition, free of vermin, obnoxious smells and substances, then the person shall be required to apply for a facility permit to keep such animals at the site." The zoning codes are broken down Into base zones: Open Space Zone, Single-Dwelling Zone, Multi-Dwelling Zone, Commercial Zone, and Employment & Industrial Zone. Revised on: 06/23/20D8,06/24/2008 13 For purposes of this paper, I only looked at the two residential zones found in Chapter 33. In both cases, the use tables offer no guidance. In addition, the codes for both zones include a section entitled "Nuisance-Related Impacts". The language with respect to animals refers back to Title 13. The language states: 'Nuisance-type impacts related to animals are regulated by Title 13, Animals Title 13 is enforced by the County Health Offrcer" Thus, It is assumed that one may own up to 3 chickens in any residential zoning district assuming the keeping of up to and no more than 3 chickens does not constitute a nuisance. Owning more than 3 chickens would require a permit. The of Oakland. California. Chapter 6.04 Animal Control Regulations is relatively clear with regard to owning hens. Specifically 6.04.320 Keeping of Fowl states: W is unlawful for any person to keep any ducks, geese, chickens or other fowl/n any enclosure in the city unless the exterior boundaries of said enclosures are more than (20) feet from any dwelling, church or school. It 15 unlawful for any person to keep, harbor or maintain roosters within the city limit." The code specifically prohibits the keeping of certain animals in an apartment house, hotel and business district. According to 6.04.290: "It is unlawful foranyperson to raise, or keep, live chickens, ducks, geese or other fowl, or pigeons, rabbits, guinea pigs or goats, in any enclosure or yard on property occupied by an apartment house or hotel or/n a business district in the city, except when such fowl or animals are kept within a bona fide produce market, commission house or store for purposes of trade and, while so kept, are confined in small coops, boxes or cages The zoning codes for each of the respective residential zoning districts doesn't specifically prohibit owning or keeping chickens. Thus, the information provided above, suggests that one may own hens as long as the provisions in 6.04.320 are met. There are no limitations in the code with respect to the number of hens one may own. Revised on:06/23/2008, 06/24/2008 14 STEP 3: INTERNET RESEARCH Urban farming, which includes keeping hens for the eggs and meat, appears to be a growing phenomenon. Several websites that I found were useful and offer a variety of Information specifically with regard to raising chickens, chicken coops, City's where chickens are/are not allowed, etc. The first is Mad City Chickens which is a site devoted to owning, raising and caring for chickens in the City of Madison, Wisconsin. The web site can be found at h=://madcltychickens.com/index.html. Another web site entitled "The City Chicken" provides a listing of City's throughout the United States that both allow and disallow owning chickens. The web site can be found at the following address: http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/index.htmi. A third site entitled the Boulder Sustainability Education Center is a local non-profit which focuses on offering classes in sustainable living skills including things like xeriscaping, backyard beekeeping, homemade cheesemaking and backyard chickens. The web site for the Boulder Sustainability Education Center can be found at the following address: http://bouldersustainabiliN.oralprograms.htmi Lastly, the lust Food City Chicken Project helps people legally and safely raise chickens for eggs in New York City. By working in partnership with their network of urban gardeners and other organizations, Just Food has launched an initiative to: • promote best practices and the benefits of raising chickens in the city, • teach people how to build coops that are structurally sound and healthy for hens, • publicize relevant city regulations and codes, and • support gardeners who are interested in setting-up or expanding egg production operations. Just Food's web site can be accessed at the following web address: http://www.iustfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/. Additional internet resources are provided as links within each of the above sites. Concluding Remarks: It seemed apparent from my discussions with animal control officers that very few complaints are generated as a result of owning hens. Roosters, however, are a source of angst in residential neighborhoods. Any code amendments should then include a section prohibiting roosters or at the very least a section defining nuisances that could include excessive noise. Secondly, because of the excrement generated by hens, any code amendment should include a provision for maintaining certain sanitary standards. Several of the codes that I researched provided some guidance in this area. Revised on: 06/2312008, 06/24/2008 15 Thirdly, It may simplify things from a code enforcement perspective to include a definitions section to any code amendments that specifically identifies permitted animals and prohibited animals and the number of animals that may be permitted. Pros Associated with Allowing Hens in Residential Zoning Districts: Hens provide a fresh, locally produced, and Inexpensive source of food to families at a time when food prices are increasing significantly. Hens will eat food scraps, dandelions, mice, and insects. The hen droppings may be used as a natural fertilizer which may be used in backyard gardens. Eggs from backyard chickens are more nutritious than factory-produced eggs. Cons Associated with Allowing Hens in Residential Zoning Districts: The presence of chickens may attract predators such as foxes into residential neighborhoods putting pet animals like dogs and cats at greater risk of attack. May lead to unsanitary conditions due to neglect of owners. Hens may take flight in short bursts and are capable of clearing a six foot privacy fence. Revised on: 06/23/2008,06/24/2008 16 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 7 Ted Shepard- F wd: Urban chickens and property values in Portland From: "Dan Brown" <fortcollinshens@gmail.com> To: "Ted Shepard" <tshepard@fcgov.com> Date: 8/12/2008 4:18 PM Subject: Fwd: Urban chickens and property values in Portland Ted, Here are some comments from Jane Leo at the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors in regard to the impact of urban chickens on property values. Please include this in our documentation. Regards, Dan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jane Leo <JLeo@pmar.org> Date: Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM Subject: RE: Urban chickens and property values in Portland To: Dan Brown<fortcollinshens@gma_ilcom> Cc: Michelle Jacobs <mjacobs@fcbr.org> Dan—In response to your request for comment regarding the impact of chickens in a residential zone in the City of Portland, I can only iterate comments made during our telephone conversation. Chickens can be found in both older and newer Portland neighborhoods. City code, available at www_portiand_online.com, regulates the distance the livestock area must be from residential units and the gender of the chickens. Roosters are forbidden. During my 14-plus years with the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, I have not had a conversation with any member in which the discussion centered around chickens negatively impacting the desirability of a neighborhood nor housing values. Best regards, Jane Leo Governmental Affairs Director Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors Direct Phone Line: 5031459-2163 From: Dan Brown [mailto:fortcollinshens maii.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:55 PM To: Jane Leo Subject: Urban chickens and property values in Portland Jane, Thank you very much for talking with me about the effects of urban chickens on property values in Portland, OR. There have been some concerns raised about the possible impact on property values of file://CADocuments and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000l.HTM 8/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 changing the city ordinances to allow urban chickens in Fort Collins, CO, and I thought that your experiences in Portland would be informative to our decision makers. I would appreciate a brief written message with your professional take on this issue, per our phone conversation. Thank you very much for your time. Regards, Dan Brown file://C:\Documents and Settings\tshepard\L,ocal Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 8/20/2008 Page 1 of 2 Ted Shepard -Fwd: Urban chickens and property values in Madison From: "Dan Brown" <fortcollinshens@gmail.com> To: "Ted Shepard" <tshepard@fcgov.com> Date: 8/12/2008 4:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Urban chickens and property values in Madison Ted, I have heard that there may be some concern from some real estate agents regarding the urban hen proposal. I have been in contact with some Real Estate Associations in other chicken-friendly cities and will forward on their comments to include in our supporting documentation. Please see below from Phil Salkin in Madison, WI. I will also be forwarding some comments from Portland, OR. Thank you so much for your time in this issue. Dan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salkin,Phil- Governmental Affairs Director<PSalkin@wra.org> Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM Subject: RE: Urban chickens and property values in Madison To: Dan Brown<fortcollinshens@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Brown: I have spoken to any number of my veteran members regarding your question. I was somewhat surprised when few Were even aware of the practice of keeping urban chickens. This has been permissible in Madison for some time now. Those who were familiar with the practice were not aware of any conflicts or issues it has caused with their clients. Tomorrow, I am meeting with my Gov. Affairs Comm., I will quiz them on the issue. There is an alder(Marsha Rummel—Dist. 6)currently sponsoring an ordinance amendment extending the right to at least some rental units. We have not felt the need to weigh in on the issue. file://C:\Documents and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000LHTM 8/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 Phil S. 608.438.7993 psaii(in@wra.org From: Dan Brown [mailto:fortcollinshens@gmail.com1 Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:59 PM To: Salkin, Phil - Governmental Affairs Director Subject: Urban chickens and property values in Madison Phil, Thank you very much for talking with me about the effects of urban chickens on property values in Madison, WI. There have been some concerns raised about the possible impact on property values of changing the city ordinances to allow urban chickens in Fort Collins, CO, and I thought that your experiences in Madison would be informative to our decision makers. I would appreciate a brief written message with your professional take on this issue, per our phone conversation. Thank you very much for your time. Regards, Dan Brown file://C:\Documents and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\GW)OOOOI.HTM 8/20/2008 Ted Shepard - Fwd Chickens in Madison Page From: "Watkins-Brown Family" <watkins.brown@gmail.com> To: TSHEPARD@fcgov.com Date: 8/8/2008 8:46:27 AM Subject: Fwd: Chickens in Madison Ted, Here is something to add to the supporting documentation for the chicken initiative. Doug Voegeli is the Supervisor of Environmental Health Services for Madison and Dade Counties in Wisconsin. Please see his comments below. Regards, Dan --------Forwarded message--------- From: Voegeli, Doug <DVoegeli@publichealthmdc.com> Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM Subject: Chickens in Madison To: watkins.brown@gmail.com Since the ordinance was approved, we have not had a complaint of unsanitary conditions due to chickens. I also supervise animal services and believe that we have not had any complaints of chickens at large. The chicken keeping community does a good job of caring for and restraining their chickens. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Douglas Voegeli, Supervisor Environmental Health Services Public Health: Madison and Dane County (608)243-0360 Fax(608)267-8806 dvoegeli@publichealthmdc.com ATTACHMENT 8 To: Mayor and City Council of Ft. Collins, CO From: KT LaBadie,co-founder of UrbanChickens.org Re: Backyard chicken keeping in Ft. Collins My name is KT LaBadie and I am a co-founder of UrbanChickens.org. I am also a graduate student at the University of New Mexico, and some of my current research includes urban chicken regulations and urban livestock planning. The issue of whether or not to allow backyard chicken keeping in Ft. Collins is currently under consideration, and I urge you to support this important and timely initiative. Citizens nationwide have become more interested in growing and raising their own food not only due to food safety concerns and rising food costs, but also out of the desire for a higher quality product. This interest in backyard food production has grown over the years to include not only fruit and vegetable production, but also backyard goat, chicken and honey bee husbandry. Many cities across the nation have adopted regulations which allow their citizens to keep small livestock, and this trend is increasing rapidly. The most successful backyard chicken keeping programs are in cities that have active community participation and citizen led chicken keeping education programs. From what I have read in the media and through communications with Ft. Collins resident Dan Brown, local chicken advocates: ■ Are organizing themselves and educating the public on the chicken keeping issue ■ Are interested and willing to develop and teach chicken keeping classes and organize other educational events such as "coop tours" ■ Are interested in forming an ordinance that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders, such as not permitting roosters (noise), only allowing a small number of hens (odors), and requiring proper food storage (rodents). Regardless of legalization, residents of Ft. Collins will continue to keep chickens. A well formed chicken ordinance combined with the above named active community participation will only ensure that backyard chickens flocks are kept within the limits of the law. I hope to see Ft. Collins join the growing list of US cities that allow their residents to keep backyard chicken flocks. I have attached a list of resources and information, as well as a research paper that you may find helpful in your decision making process. Please feel free to contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. X --, KT LaBadie ktCa)urbanchickens.org (505) 363-0838 Backyard Chicken Keeping: Resources and Information Resources: • A list of chicken groups and programs from a variety of cities, as well as other web-based resources can be found at http://urbanchickens.org/resources-and- Some cities that allow the keeping of backyard chickens include: ■ New York City, NY ■ Albuquerque, NM • Santa Fe, NM • Madison, WI ■ Los Angeles, CA • Seattle, WA ■ Portland, OR • Ann Arbor,MI ■ Missoula, MT ■ Boise, ID • Austin, TX • Honolulu, HI ■ Chicago, IL ■ Key West,FL Why backyard hens? ■ They provide a source of protein (eggs), which does not require the slaughtering of the animal (although slaughtering is allowed in some cities) ■ They are small and have minimal space requirements, making them the perfect backyard livestock ■ A small flock (of 2- 6 hens)can provide enough eggs for a family each week, and surplus can be easily stored or shared with neighbors Concerns over backyard hens? ■ Noise: Hens (not roosters) are relatively quiet compared to most barking dogs. They making gentle clucking noises throughout the day, and get a little louder to announce that they've laid an egg. Most cities do not allow roosters. ■ Odors and waste: Small flocks produce little or no odor, and waste is easily managed. A small flock of chickens produces a similar amount of waste daily to that of a large dog. ■ Rodents and other pests: When chicken feed is stored properly, attracting rodents and other pests is rarely an issue. ■ Chickens running loose: Most cities require that chickens be enclosed at all times in a fenced in coop or run. • Bird Flu: Backyard flocks in the US are currently not at risk. The following is from the CDC website: We have a small flock of chickens. Is it safe to keep them? Yes. In the United States there is no need at present to remove a flock of chickens because of concerns regarding avian influenza. The U.S. Department of Agriculture monitors potential infection of poultry and poultry products by avian influenza viruses and other infectious disease agents. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tlu/avian/gen-info/ga.htm Benefits of allowing backyard chickens include: ■ For your city ✓ Increasing the potential for locally produced food and food security within your municipality ✓ Being seen as a more "sustainable"city in the eyes of the media and the public ■ For your residents ✓ Eggs provide a safe source of backyard protein that compliments backyard fruit and vegetable production, and allow residents to have more control over the food the consume ✓ Chicken keeping provides children with an opportunity to learn first hand about food production, while also gaining skills in animal husbandry ✓ Chickens provide a natural nutrient rich fertilizer that can be composted and added to landscaping/gardens ✓ Chickens can help to control certain pests, such as grubs and cockroaches Common regulatory themes found in chicken ordinances include: ■ The number of birds permitted per household ■ The regulation of roosters • Permits and fees required for keeping chickens ■ Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions ■ Nuisance clauses related to chickens (noise, odor, etc) • Slaughtering restrictions ■ Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines • Space requirements per bird ■ Requirements for proper feed storage More information on ordinances: Please refer to the following research paper, which examines chicken ordinances from 25 cities. Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities w+ M Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens. Source:http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 KT LaBadie CRP 580 Spring 2008 University of New Mexico May 7th 2008 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 ResearchMethods............................................................................................................. 5 Analysis..............................................................................................................................6 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12 Number of Birds Permitted.............................................................................................7 Regulation of Roosters.................................................................................................... 8 Permitsand Fees............................................................................................................. 8 Enclosure Requirements................................................................................................. 9 NuisanceClauses............................................................................................................9 Slaughtering Restrictions.............................................................................................. 10 Distance Restrictions.................................................................................................... 10 UniqueRegulations....................................................................................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................... 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................................................ 16 AppendixA...................................................................................................................... 17 25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17 AppendixB...................................................................................................................... 18 Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18 AppendixC...................................................................................................................... 19 Exampleordinance........................................................................................................ 19 2 Abstract City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro-chicken ordinances from 25 cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance. 3 Introduction V can't say that I would have envisioned chickens as an issue, but I've heard from a lot of people about them,and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to."f -Stacy Rye,Missoula City Councilwoman It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city. This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison, and a case is currently pending in Ann Arbor, Michigan5. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the issue. The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model. Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news,backyard chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons,backyard chickens have become 'Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. .Available online at http://www.niissoula.com/news/node/226 2 Medley,Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video:Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_Squabble/C8/L8/ 3 CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html Harrison-Noonan,Dennis. Urban chicken keeper,Madison,Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8,2008. s Kunselman,Steve. City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor,Michigan. Interviewed on April 29,2008. 4 increasingly popular,but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their neighborhood. There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells, diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens qualify as pets or livestock. Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new,but it is now something that needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United States. Research Methods The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage, and other resources. Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see 5 Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances. Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and urban food/gardening community organizations: ■ Steve Kunselman, City Councilor (ward 3)Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed pro-chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008. ■ Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban chickens at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ ■ Dennis Harrison-Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison,Wisconsin. He was involved in the adoption of pro-chicken ordinances for Madison. • Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping, stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing chicken keeping. Analysis Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory themes that emerged from the set evaluated. These common themes are as follows: ■ The number of birds permitted per household • The regulation of roosters • Permits and fees required for keeping chickens • Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions ■ Nuisance clauses related to chickens ■ Slaughtering restrictions • Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are discussed in detail below. The ease and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also discussed. 6 Number of Birds Permitted Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear(or not specifically stated) regulations on the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted, 2 cities used distance from property lines as a determining factor, and 1 city placed no limit on the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities. The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. "That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up," he stated in a personal correspondence.6 The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland, Oregon's chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household; however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more (See Appendix A). In this case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and those wishing to keep more can apply to do so. e Kriese,Thomans. Urban chicken keeper,Redwood City,CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.conV 7 Regulation of Roosters The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was permitted, 1 city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, 1 allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, 1 allowed a single rooster per household, and 1 placed no restrictions. Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is generally accepted to only allow hens. In the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1 rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing. This does allow people to have more choice,however it can also increase the costs associated with enforcing noise complaints. Permits and Fees The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in 11 of the cities evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees, or both. The fees ranged from$5.00 to $40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture. Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats, which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep in price, it can exclude lower income populations from keeping chickens by increasing the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3 cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything 8 above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs, while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations. Enclosure Requirements In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14 required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to "run at large". In one case, the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required. Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators. However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing chickens to roam in their own yard. Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are generally not subject to this type of regulation. Nuisance Clauses There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the 17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure. Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed above,but rather they result from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur. 9 A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign, such as chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities, chicken keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints. Slaughtering Restrictions Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19 of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining, 4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2 stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns, most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to chickens. Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers,Arkansas for example, only allows the slaughtering to take place inside (Appendix Q, which could help prevent neighbor complaints about the process. Allowing for slaughtering however, may also have its benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs. Distance Restrictions Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet, while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet. If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into consideration. For example, Spokane, WA has a property line distance restriction of 90 10 feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards. This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines) are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition to the chicken keepers property. Unique Regulations All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes, but there were also some unique regulations that one (or a few) cities had related to residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows: ■ Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers • Pro-chicken regulations are on a 1-year trial basis with only a set number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation. • For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, 1 additional chicken may be added to the property. • The allowance of chickens in multi-family zoned areas (allowance in single family zoning is most common) • Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of pathogens and waste. ■ Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured • Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending the right to keep chickens to those living in multi-family dwelling units or allowing more birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential chicken keeping after a certain time frame. 11 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances Of the 25 pro-chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases, pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance. The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix Q. Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non- compliance. Findings and Recommendations "Issues such as rodent control are a real concern and the ordinance can have a positive influence on keeping an already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is". -Debra Lippoldt,Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR' The original question for this paper was "What is a good urban chicken ordinance?' This was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the analysis however, the question was changed to "What are the good components and considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?" There is no superior"one size fits all" ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different physical, environmental, social, and political needs. Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro-chicken ordinance should be built upon the following considerations: Lippoldt,Debra.Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8,2008. 12 • It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise • It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller property sizes ■ It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers the right to choose their own coop design and building materials ■ It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of, and is supported by the community • It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable urban environment • It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce violations. The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can provide insight into the best possible choices. The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would be left. Two chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand, allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average allowances found (not the most extremes) are the best choices of an example regulation for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance. In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies. 13 Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing citizens to keep chickens. In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is going to adopt a pro-chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases, cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few complaints or nuisances, those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically to the needs of the city and its residents. Conclusions "It seems that if we want to be a town that does its partfor sustainabiliry, this is something we ought to consider.I think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward more sustainable food practices." -Mayor John Engen,Missoula,MT a Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not a Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at http://www.niissoula.com/news/node/226 14 only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By forming a just and well thought out pro-chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups. With that said, city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a "how" rather than a"yes" or"no", as a growing list of pro-chicken cities across the nation shows that it can be done successfully. 15 References (References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B) CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfanns/chickens/ Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_ squabble/C8/L8/ Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.conVnews/node/226 16 Appendix A 25 Ordinances Analyzed city/State #of birds Roosters PermiV Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique permitted allowed permit cost required clause permitted restrictions r ulations Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 ft from owners CA It from home,35 it from nei or neighbors Rogers,AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 ft from neighbors house Keywest,FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as fertilizer,feed must be stored in rat proof containers Topeka,KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from neighbors house South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till Portland,ME building November 2008,only permit 20 permits issued till re uired yearly evaluation Madison,W I 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 it from neighbors house New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No NY Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No NM household Portland,OR 3 without unclear $31 onetime Yes Yes unclear unclear ermit fee for 4+ Seattle,WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 It from property 1 additional chicken per line 1,000 sq It of property above minimum Spokane,WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 ft from property Chickens allowed in 2,000 sq ft line multi-family zoned areas of land San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 ft TX line from another from home, 12 birds at dependent dwelling 50 it,50 birds at 150 ft Honolulu, HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Oakland,CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum from another dwelling St.Louis,MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear without for more than permit 4 birds San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 It from Feed must be stored in CA neighbors house rat proof container San Jose,CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 ft=0 birds allowed, on coop to roosters< needed for 6 50 ft,determines 15 to 20 it=4 birds,etc, property 4 months or more birds #of birds up to 50 ft=25 birds line old Austin,TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 ft from neighbors house Memphis,TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in rat Proof container Ft.Worth,TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 It from <1/2 acre=12 birds, lot size neighbors house >1/2 acre=25 birds Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from Coops must be mobile MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build control and up,minimum 2 sq Dept of A . ft/bird, Charlotte, NC based on unclear S40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from property minimum 4 sq.It/bird, lot size line no more than 20/acre Missoula,MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 ft from Feed must be stored in neighbors house rat proof container Boise, ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door Francisco, or window of CA residence 17 Appendix B Sources for 25 Ordinances City/State Source for Ordinance Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services. hftp://www.laanimalservices.org/permitbook.pdf Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100 http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp Keywest, FL Part 2, Title 5 Section 62 www.keywestchickens.com/city To eka, KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3 http://www.southportiand.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=(93286El E-9FF8- 40D2-AC30-8840DEB23A29 Madison, WI http://www.madcitychickens.com/and www.municode.com New York, NY Just Food's City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at htt ://www.'ustfood.or /cit arms/chickens/ Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9, article 2, part 4, § 9-2-4-3, c-3 hftp://www.amlegal.com/albuquergue nm/ Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015 http://www.portiandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid 13497 Seattle,WA Ordinance 122311 section 23 www.seattleurbanfarmeo.com/chickens Spokane, WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 17C.310.100 -http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/?Section=l 7C.31 0.100 San Antonio, TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals www.sanantonio.gov/animaicare/healthcode.asp Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5 www.honolulu.gov/refs/roh Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320 www.oakfandanimalservices.org St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7 www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/tl02OOl.htm San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709 htt ://docs.sandie o. ov/municode/municodecha ter04/chO4artO2divisionO7. df San Jose, CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, W50 www.sanioseanimals.com/ordinances/sjmc7.04.htm Austin, TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2 www.amlegal.com/Austin-nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7 hftp://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com Ft.Worth, TX Section 11A-22a www.municode.com Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106;Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3 www.baltimorehealth.org/press/2007 02 02 AnimalRe s. df Charlotte, NC Section 3-102 http://www.charmeck.org/departments/animal+control/local+ordinances/perm its/htm and municode.com Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12 ftp://www.ci.m issoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2007/2007-12- 17/Chicken Ordinance. df Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14 http://www.cityofboise.org/city_plerk/citycode/0614.pdf and http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37 hftp://sfoov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id=5476 18 Appendix C Example ordinance Rogers, AK ORDINANCE NO. 06- 100 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONTAINMENT OF FOWL AND OTHER ANIMALS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROGERS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROGERS, ARKANSAS: Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any domesticated fowl to run at large within the corporate limits of the city. It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks of any size in A-I zones of the city, so long as they are confined. Section 2: It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the city in all other zones, except A-I, under the following terms and conditions: a. No more than four(4) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling. No birds shall be allowed in multi-family complexes, including duplexes. b. No roosters shall be allowed. c. There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds. d. All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure enclosure constructed at least two feet above the surface of the ground. e. Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence. f. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors. g. Persons wishing to keep fowl within the city must obtain a permit from the Office of the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and must pay a$5.00 annual fee. Section 3: The above Section 2 is not intended to apply to the 'ducks and geese in Lake Atalanta Park, nor to indoor birds kept as pets, such as, but not limited to,parrots or parakeets, nor to the lawful transportation of fowl through the corporate limits of the city. Neither shall it apply to poultry kept in areas of the City which are zoned A-I. Section 4: Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be "grandfathered" or permitted to remain after the effective date of this Ordinance; however, owners of the poultry will have 90 days from the effective date to come into compliance with this ordinance. Source: http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp 19 ATTACHMENT 9 Attached is a sample page of a petition received by staff, containing 442 signatures. "Petition as Demonstration of Support for Urban Hen Amendment" i Cluck YES! Support pet hens in Fort Collins! Petition as Demonstration of Support for Urban Hen Amendment Fort Collins community voices are clucking in united fashion. What started as a one-man investigative odyssey to bring fresh eggs and playful, feathery companions to his family In his own badryard has gained momentum and visibility. It has also sparked thoughtful dialogue on sustainability implications amongst supportive community members, businesses and £ non-profits who recognize the benefits that a small number of backyard hens can offer in local, healthy food production; ` the vital role they can play in efficient kitchen and yard scrap composting and solid waste stream reduction; and the value °^ t , ,n they can offer in helping young children and youth understand their connection to this web of source, food, recycling and s , 5 helpful companions.This informal petition is respectfully submitted as a demonstration of support for the Urban Hen Amendment to allow up to six fowl hens (no roosters) as backyard pets inside City of Fort Collins limits. . We, the undersigned chicken folk, fans, businesses&non-profits are responsible, local citizens who urge our leaders in City f xrt Council to act now to approve the Planning &Zoning Board's recommendation of amending the definition of farm animals in the City's Land Use Code to allow Fort Collins residents to own up to six hens as pets. t=Teo- '61 7,i 7- I�A� i a yl Ibol Crnl h 57-q 1g� ATTACHMENT ' FIRST READING : 1 . No more than six chicken hens may be allowed and only for the purpose of producing eggs . 2 . No roosters . 3 . No slaughtering . 4 . Chicken hens shall be kept within a secure enclosure . 5 . Enclosures shall be located at least fifteen ( 15 ) feet from the nearest property line . SECOND READING (part one) A. More than one dwelling : all parties must consent B . Coop : covered , ventilated , access by humans , min . 2 sq . ft . /chicken , predator- proof. C . Hens inside from dusk to dawn . D . Indoor/outdoor chicken access during the day - fenced to keep out predators . E . Feed kept in rodent and predator proof container. SECOND READING (part two) : F . Coop may be closer with neighbor' s permission . G . Must register with the Larimer Humane Society . H . No contact with wild poultry or their excrement . I . Review the ordinance after one year. F�t\ Collins. ORDINANCE NO . 072, 2008 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 5 . 1 .2 OF THE LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMALS AND AMENDING SECTION 4- 117 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY PERTAINING TO CHICKENS WHEREAS , the City has received an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to change the definition of "farm animal" to includeexclude from that definition up to six chicken hens in so that residents in all zone districts of the City to produce eggs f6r personal consumptio will be able to keep hens for the production of eggs ; and WHEREAS , the Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that limited tmmber of chicken hens be allowed in order to enable citizens to produce eggs for personal consumpti to make this change so as to htfrsupport a sustainable fifestyle and to supportlocal food production, food security, and economic and environmental sustainability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows : Section 1 . That the definition of "Farm animals " as contained in Section 5 . 1 . 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows : Farm animals shall mean animals commonly raised or kept in an agricultural, rather than an urban, environment including, but not limited to, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, cattle, llamas, emus, ostriches, donkeys and mules ; provided, however, that chicken hens, numbering six (6) or fewer, shall not be considered to be farm animals . Section 2 . That Section 4- 117 of the Code of the City be amended to read as follows : Sec. 4-117. Sale of chickens and ducklings ; quantity restricted ; keeping of chickens -liens. (a) Chickens or ducklings younger than eight (8) weeks of age may not be sold in quantities of less than six (6) to a single purchaser. (b) Except in those zone districts which permit the keeping of '1�rm atifinals". no more than six (6) chickcn liens may be kept fbr the purpose o producing eggs, provided that such hens are contained within a secure enclosure located at least fifteen ( 15) feet from all property lines . Neither the keeping o roosters nor the slaughtering of chickens is allo Except in those zone districts where the keeping of farm animals (as that term is defined in Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code) is allowed, the keeping of chicken roosters or more than six (6) chicken hens is prohibited. However, up to six (6) chicken hens may be kept per parcel of property, subject to the following requirements and subject to all other applicable provisions of this Chapter: (i) if a parcel has more than one ( 1 ) dwelling unit, all adult residents and the owner(s) of the parcel must consent in writing to allowing the chicken hens on the property; (ii) any person keeping chicken hens pursuant to this provision must first have been issued a permit by the Larimer Humane Society and have received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of chicken hens as the director of said agency deems appropriate ; (iii) the chicken hens must be provided with a covered, predator-resistant chicken house that is properly ventilated, designed to be easily accessed, cleaned and maintained, and at least two (2) square feet per chicken in size ; (iv) during daylight hours, the chicken hens must have access to the chicken house and also have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to protect them from predators ; (v) the chicken hens must be further protected from predators by being closed in the chicken house from dusk to dawn; (vi) neither the chicken house nor the outdoor enclosure may be located less than fifteen ( 15) feet from any abutting property line unless the owner or keeper of the chicken hens obtains the written consent of the owner(s) of all abutting properties to which the enclosure is proposed to be more closely located, in which event the agreed-upon location shall then be deemed acceptable notwithstanding any subsequent change in ownership of such abutting property or properties ; (vii) the chicken hens must be sheltered or confined in such fashion as to prevent them from coming into contact with wild ducks or geese or their excrement; and (viii) the chicken hens may not be killed by or at the direction of the owner or keeper thereof except pursuant to the lawful order of state or county health officials, or for the purpose of euthanasia when surrendered to a licensed veterinarian or the Humane Society for such purpose, or as otherwise expressly permitted by law. Section 3 . After the passage of one ( 1 ) year from the effective date of this ordinance, the City Manager shall review the merits and impacts of this ordinance and submit a written report regarding the same to the City Council. -2- Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 3rd day of June, A.D . 2008 , and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd of day of September, A. D . 2008 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 2nd day of September, A . D . 2008 . Mayor ATTEST : City Clerk - 3 -