#2 Public hearing and action on regulation regarding chickens within city limits (File Ord. #2010-450)
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM
February 16, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM:Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Second Reading, Public Hearing and Action on a Proposed Ordinance
Amending the Regulations Prohibiting Chickens Within City Limits
(File Ordinance No. 2010-450)
Request
Commissioners McDonald and Rashkin have requested this item be placed on the
agenda.
Plan Commission Recommendation:
At the February 15, 2010 Plan Commission meeting, the committee held a public
hearing and voted 6-0-1 to forward on a negative recommendation regarding the
proposed ordinance.
Attached is the Staff Report, Plan Commission minutes and handouts from citizens that
were distributed at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
The City Manager defers to the Plan Commission’s recommendation.
Suggested Motion
If the City Council wishes to consider reducing the restrictions regarding chickens in the
city, following the public hearing, the proposed Ordinance should be approved.
Background
The current ordinance regulating wildlife allows chickens to be raised only in the
outlying areas of the city. The ordinance reads that no chickens or chicken coops are
allowed in the city, except for outlying areas where no tenement or other building
resides that is occupied by someone other than the owner. Additionally, poultry houses
must be located at least 150 feet from any structure, except for the residence of the
owner, thereby prohibiting chickens in most areas since they are required to be kept in a
coop. The number of chickens cannot exceed twenty-five.
Recently the issue of whether to reduce the restrictions and allow individuals not living
in the outlying areas of the city to keep chickens has been discussed at public meetings.
As a result City staff has been instructed to review our current ordinance and compare
them with other communities.
Staff researched other communities that allow chickens, including Madison to determine
what if any challenges were faced from allowing chickens within city limits. Based on
information from other communities that allow chickens, the number of chickens to be
kept appears to be limited to 4. Also staff assigned to enforcing chicken regulations
reported that there have been a limited number of incidents over the years. Zoning
administrators report that any enforcement issues concerning chickens are handled on
a complaint basis. Madison receives an average of 10 complaints per calendar year
and states enforcement efforts are minimal, in most cases any violations are corrected
without incident.
Analysis
Below is a list of potential pros and cons to amending the ordinance to allow chickens to
be raised in areas other than the outlying areas of the city.
Pros
?
Allowing chickens to be raised in other areas of the city would allow those
citizens living in other sections of the city the opportunity to raise chickens which
can provide eggs.
?
Chickens are seen as neighbor friendly due to the low amount of noise they
cause.
Cons
?
Staff feels that if an exception is granted to raising chickens, then exceptions
may be granted to other types of animals as well.
?
If chickens are kept in poor conditions then it has the potential to attract vermin
and predators.
?
Allowing chickens in additional parts of the city may create an administrative
burden to city staff including enforcement of complaints.
?
It creates the potential to be an inconvenience to neighbors of individuals who
raise chickens due to the smell that is caused from chickens raised in
unsatisfactory conditions.
Additionally staff has been asked to look into the matter of whether raising chickens within
city limits would impact property values. There has been no empirical evidence to
suggest a positive or negative impact on home values and staff is unable to quantify the
potential effect keeping chickens would have on adjacent properties.
CC:
Eric Levitt, City Manager
Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-450
An ordinance amending the keeping of animals so as to allow the keeping of chickens
everywhere within the city limits while decreasing the maximum number of kept
chickens allowed to four, with penalties for violations thereof as set forth in JGO
6.12.200.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 6.12.010 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows:
6.12.010 Livestock and poultry—Areas not allowed--
Exceptions--Nuisances prohibited--Number limitations
.A. No horse, mule,
donkey, pony, cow, pig, goat, sheep, or animal raised for fur-bearing purposes,
and no chicken coop, dove cote, rabbit warren, or other yard or establishment
where small animals or fowl such as chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants,
rabbits, or guinea pigs are kept shall be allowed within the city limits, except in
outlying building areas where no house, building, tenement, apartment house,
hotel, restaurant, boardinghouse, retail food store, building used for school,
religious or hospital purposes, or residence other than that occupied by the
owner or occupant of the premises upon which such animals or fowl are kept is
less than one hundred fifty feet from the outer edge of any barn, coop, or
enclosure in which said creatures are housed or permitted to run All said
creatures may be kept only when no nuisance is created thereby, and their
numbers shall be kept within the limitations set out in Sections 6.12.020 through
6.12.060
B. Excepted from the prohibitions set forth in this section are chickens and
chicken coops. Chicken coops and chickens must be located at least twenty-five
feet from all structures including houses, buildings, tenements, apartment
houses, hotels, restaurants, boardinghouses, retail food stores, buildings used
for schools, religious or hospital purposes, or residences other than that occupied
by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which chickens and chicken
coops are kept, and cannot be kept upon any public property. In no event shall
more than four (4) chickens be allowed per lot.
SECTION II. Section 6.12.020 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows:
6.12.020 Poultry houses, and yards, and chicken coops--Number of
birds, or fowl, or chickens permitted
.Where poultry houses and yards are
located at least one hundred fifty feet from the structure set out in Section
6.12.010, the keeping of not to exceed twenty-five birds or fowl, but no crowing
roosters, shall be permitted. Excepted from this requirement are chicken coops
and chickens, which must be located at least twenty-five feet from the structures
set out in Section 6.12.010 but in no event shall more than four (4) chickens be
permitted per lot.
SECTION III. Section 6.12.025 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville is hereby created to read as follows:
6.12.025 Chickens—Defined.
A “chicken” is defined as a domestic fowl bred for
flesh or eggs.
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
APPROVED:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
Brunner
McDonald
Perrotto
Eric Levitt, City Manager
Rashkin
Steeber
ATTEST:
Truman
Voskuil
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
Proposed by: Council Members McDonald & Rashkin
Prepared by: Management Analyst & City Attorney
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: February 2, 2010
MEMO TO: Janesville Plan Commission
FROM: Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and action on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the
Regulations of Prohibiting Chickens within City Limits
________________________________________________________________
I. RECOMENDATION
Following the public hearing, the Community Development Department
recommends that the Plan Commission forward a negative
recommendation on Revised-Ordinance 2010-450 amending the General
Code of Ordinances to expand the area where chickens are allowed to be
kept in the City.
II. REQUEST
Councilmembers Rashkin and McDonald have requested that the
ordinance currently prohibiting the keeping of chickens in outlying areas of
the city be reviewed to determine if an amendment is necessary to grant
citizens the ability to raise chickens in other areas of the city. The City
Attorney’s Office has drafted an amendment to the ordinance with
changes that would allow for chickens to be kept in all areas of the
community provided that certain separation requirements are maintained
on the premises where chickens are kept.
The City Council has referred this item to the Plan Commission for their
consideration. As part of the review, the Plan Commission also has the
opportunity to discuss and suggest additional changes to the proposed
ordinance amendment.
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Current Ordinance
The current ordinance allows for chickens to be kept in outlying
areas of the City. Chickens must be kept 150 feet from any
habitable structure or building other than the residence occupied by
the owner of the premises where the chickens are kept. Up to 25
chickens are allowed to be kept by the owner, but no crowing
roosters are permitted.
It is clear the intent of the current ordinance is designed to limit the
keeping of animals in the city. Livestock are prohibited altogether
and chickens and poultry are restricted to “outlying areas” with 150
foot setback requirements. This is intended to allow for limited
placement of animals on properties along the city’s edge that are
typically larger in size where urban densities of development has
not yet occurred. In essence, the sparse building density in these
areas provides for separation between an animal confinement
structure and the nearest occupied building. Often times,
farmstead properties are annexed to the city to accommodate
development and may still include an animal rearing component.
The current ordinance provides a mechanism for types of activities
to continue until they are phased out over the course of time and
circumstance.
B. The Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance
The proposed amendment would make the following changes to
the ordinance.
?
Chickens and chicken coops must be kept 25 feet from any
other building not including the structure occupied by the
owner of the chickens. This includes uninhabitable
structures such as a detached garage.
?
The number of chickens allowed to be kept will change from
25 to 4, including no crowing roosters.
The proposed amendment if adopted would significantly expand the
area within the City where chickens may be kept and raised. The
reduction in the setback requirement to 25 feet would make it
possible for the majority of properties throughout the city to meet
this standard and therefore, be eligible to raise up to 4 chickens per
property.
C. Slaughtering of Chickens
The current ordinance does not address the slaughtering of
chickens. The proposed amendment does not address the issue
either. Neighborhood Services reported that the slaughtering of
chickens has not been an issue in the past. Staff feels that while
the amendment would allow additional areas for chickens to be
kept, that they would not be raised for slaughter. However, if the
Commission feels the issue should be specifically addressed, a “no
slaughtering” provision can be added to the amendment.
D. Ordinance Enforcement
Currently any ordinance violations are handled on a complaint
basis. Few complaints are received, and they are resolved with
relatively little staff time dedicated to the issue. Properties that fall
under the criteria to raise chickens are not required to fill out a
license or undergo a permit process.
The proposed amendment does not add the requirement for
citizens to fill out an application in order to keep chickens.
Ordinance violations would still be handled on a complaint basis.
Staff is unable to accurately estimate the amount of time that would
be dedicated to enforcement issues. Enforcement issues could
potentially include a variety of complaints regarding noise, smell,
wandering chickens, other “neighboring” animal conflicts with
chickens (i.e. cats, dogs), number of chickens kept, whether the
chickens or coop are 25 feet from a neighboring structure and
health related issues.
E. Health Related Issues
The Rock County Health Department feels that if chickens are
allowed to be kept in additional areas of the City that code
enforcement related to the sanitary conditions that chickens are
kept in will be important. There are no specific health problems
identified; however, if chicken coops and areas where chickens are
housed are inadequately maintained than potential problems could
arise, such as creating a foul odor and attracting unwanted pests
such as mosquitoes and vermin.
The current ordinance (located in chapter 6.12.6) addresses the
issue of proper sanitation and cleanliness of chicken coops and
yards. All structures and pens where chickens are kept must be
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, which includes a dry
and well ventilated area, devoid of rodents and has a ceiling. The
health officer will enforce sanitation issues on a complaint basis.
Rock County also enforces an ordinance which states that
domestic animal waste must be cleaned on a daily or routine basis.
The ordinance applies to chickens. If the areas where chickens are
kept are well maintained than the risk for vermin and predators of
chickens will be greatly reduced. Rock County Health Department
staff stated that enforcement issues related to unsanitary conditions
of pets do not occur frequently and are usually resolved without
much incident.
F. Land Use Applicability
Currently a greater number of municipalities around the United
States have moved towards allowing citizens to keep chickens.
Based on communities surveyed, only Madison and Racine
(through a special permit process) currently allow chickens. The
reasons vary and include trends toward more green practices which
include raising your own eggs, and a movement by citizen’s of the
community to allow them to be kept as pets.
From a land use perspective staff does not support the proposed
ordinance amendment. That recommendation is rooted in the
belief that the keeping of animals – livestock and poultry – creates
legitimate concerns for ensuring land use compatibility and
avoidance of conflict in an urban environment. The ordinance
amendment would allow up to 4 chickens to be housed on nearly all
properties city-wide. Considering that there are more than 20,000
residential properties in the City alone, the propensity for conflict
and subsequent enforcement of the code could be very intense and
problematic. Staff feels that the keeping of livestock is generally
recognized as an activity that occurs in either a rural or semi-rural
location where adequate separation between uses is provided.
That is consistent with what the current ordinance specifies for the
City of Janesville. It is staff’s belief that if keeping of livestock
occurs, it should be minimized in scale, location and intensity to
avoid conflict and ensure compatibility wherever possible.
For these reasons staff does not support this proposal, and
believes the current ordinance is appropriate.
cc: Duane Cherek
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - February 15, 2010
Tom Malone, Management Analyst, presented the written staff report.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak.
?
Allison Rollette, 976 Industrial Court – Stated that she hoped the City would have a
positive recommendation on this request due to unemployment, sustainability issues,
food safety issues, methane odor issue and landfill contracts expiring. She talked about
key points included in a report that she had given to commission members and stated
that if 10% of Janesville households kept chickens to bio-recycle yard and food waste for
composting that there would be a tax payer savings. She discussed courses that could
be offered to inform residents and develop customized materials for chicken keeping and
composting with hens.
Commissioner Perrotto asked Ms. Rollette if she felt the majority of Janesville citizens would
want their neighbors to raise chickens. She stated the majority of residents have a lot of
misinformation regarding this proposal and would likely need to be further educated to know
exactly what it entails.
Commissioner Werner asked what Ms. Rollette’s motivation was behind this ordinance change
and she responded that the keeping of chickens in her yard would improve the quality of food in
her vegetable garden since the hens would eat Japanese beetles and that children would enjoy
the experience.
?
Tom Chilson, 618 South Locust, stated that he was in favor of the ordinance change.
He stated that he is the Rock County 4-H poultry leader, is a flock tester and currently
raises chickens on a friend’s farm. He believes the ordinance change would provide a
great educational opportunity for children especially since there are less and less farms
around to raise chickens on.
Commissioner Voskuil questioned Chilson’s comments about fewer farms in the area and he
stated that each year more farms are disappearing for various reasons. Mr. Chilson indicated
that right now his child is the only one showing poultry in 4-H but there are others who would be
interested if they could have them in their back yard. There was further discussion regarding
disease that affects chickens and how most occurs through mismanagement, poor cleaning
habits and not taking care of the animals.
?
David Innis, 320 Park Avenue, stated he was in favor of the ordinance change. He
discussed life quality of chickens, how they facilitate health & wellness and contribute to
energy self-sufficiency. He feels the City needs to lead the Green movement and that
leadership will in turn bring businesses to the City. He handed out a copy of Madison’s
chicken ordinance and indicated that the City’s proposed ordinance overlooks certain
requirements and should be revised.
?
Kim McKay, 472 N Palm Street, stated she was a scientist in favor of the ordinance, who
had experience with keeping a small flock of chickens in college. She stated that the
neighbors were not even aware of the chickens as they didn’t cause any sort of
disturbance. She felt it would be a good experience for her children to be able to raise
poultry for 4-H and had concerns about losing biodiversity which is necessary for cross-
breeding.
?
Diane VanHorn, 1212 Bennett Street, stated that she currently grows her own
vegetables, bakes her own bread and buy meats from farmers and would like to be able
to have chickens for eggs, for fertilizer, to control garden pests and feed kitchen scraps
to. She believes that since Madison, Jefferson and Fort Atkinson currently allow
chickens that Janesville should as well.
?
Dale Hicks, 2221 East Milwaukee Street, is a rental property owner in the city and felt
the ordinance should only allow homeowners to have chickens. He questioned how
tenants with chickens would be controlled, how many chickens would be allowed for a
multi-unit building, if chickens could run loose and whether the Humane Society would
take the chickens if they were left behind by a tenant.
Commissioner Hanewold asked if chickens could be regulated within the rental
agreement as dogs & cats are. Mr. Hicks stated that they could be but feels that only
homeowners should be allowed to have chickens.
?
Billy Bob Grahn, 152 South Locust, stated he was in favor of the ordinance. He stated
that if the commission or council were to adopt the ordinance, he suggests it be modified
so that a limited number of permits be issued, that a landlord’s permission be obtained
and that there be a trial period of up 2 years.
?
Judith Detert-Moriarity, 23 South Atwood, stated she was in favor of the ordinance
change as it would allow citizens affordable nutritious food and the right to grow it
themselves. She stated it would allow citizens to reconnect to their historic roots and
gain a healthier life style working with nature. She indicated noise would not be a
concern and believes that the pros for this ordinance amendment, with proper
restrictions, outweigh the cons.
?
Paul Williams, 2426 North Lexington Drive, stated that he had concerns with the
amendment since it does not contain specifications for the coops, require inspections, or
contain anything about licensing, testing or shots (which are required for dogs and cats).
He indicated that the 25-foot rule could allow his surrounding neighbors to have 3 coops
that he’d be able to see from his backyard.
?
Robb VanHorn, 1212 Bennett Street , stated that he lived all over the world when he was
in the military and is very surprised that chickens are not allowed within the City. He
didn’t believe that chicken noise would be a problem and he would like to grow his own
food in his backyard.
?
Greg Winkler, 1724 Mayfair Drive, stated he was in support of the ordinance change.
He stated he would like to have chickens for eggs that his family would have fun with it
and he doesn’t believes there would be any nuisance caused.
?
Al Lembrich, 541 Miller Avenue, stated that he grew up on a farm raising chickens and
believes chickens should be kept in outlying areas. He said that due to complaints of
citizens in early 1960’s, the Council passed the current ordinance and that it should not
be changed without wide support. He stated that the majority of cities do not allow
chickens. He stated that the ordinance did not address permitting, fencing, if chickens
would run loose, how many chicken coops and their size and if chickens would be
allowed in the house. He stated that the Gazette poll shows that the wide majority would
not support this ordinance change. He also had concerns about cleanliness and
disease, people starting up businesses in residential areas with their chickens and what
other farm animals might end up being allowed in the future because of this ordinance
change.
The public hearing was closed.
There was discussion regarding the affect the ordinance may have on property values and Tom
Malone indicated that staff has not conducted research on that particular aspect of the proposal.
There was a motion by Commissioner Perrotto with a second by Commissioner Voskuil to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Hanewold questioned if this ordinance change had gone before the Sustainability
Committee and Cherek indicated that it had not.
The motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote with Commissioner Hanewold abstaining.
Chairperson Helgerson stated that a public hearing would be held on this item at the next City
Council Meeting to be held on February 22, 2010.