Friday, August 19, 2011
What about Bexley?
Letters to the editor from chicken opponents prophesy an horrific future for Westerville if backyard hens are made legal. The grim scene these letters predict would entail neighborhoods overcome by mountains of filth, enveloped in a foul stench, sickened by parasites, disease and vermin, not to mention the stress of having to actually see the scaly footed descendents of dinosaurs on an irregular basis.
As they present it, if El-Qaeda, the Black Death, the Ozone Hole and a crop of bed bugs descended on Westerville at once, it would not be half as bad as a few Barred Rocks or Rhode Island Reds.
Which makes me worry: I do hope Bexley is alright.
Bexley, as you recall, is an eastside community were people live closer together, on smaller lots, at a high level of prosperity and affluence compared to Westerville. They also have legal hens.
Given the dire outcome that chickens in backyards inflict-if letters written by Westerville chicken foes are accurate-I wonder is the city of Bexley is surviving, it may well have ceased to exist, overrun by a mountain of fowl waste, only a cloud of ammonia vapors and a few empty feed sacks to mark it‘s location
But wait-Bexley‘s still there. Life goes on, people go to work, schools remain open, businesses flourish, property values remain high(40,000 HIGHER than Westerville).
When Bexley was considering a chicken ordinance, not one citizen spoke against it. Are Bexley folk so civic minded they will endure any inconvenience and annoyance so their neighbors can have fresh eggs? I doubt it.
When Bexley City Council voted on that same chicken ordinance, it was a unanimous vote in favor-unanimous! Could that council be so derelict in it’s duty it would endanger the life, welfare and property values of the good voters who put them in office? It seems unlikely.
The Bexley animal control officer has been quoted in print, stating that the chickens now residing in a few Bexley back yards are no trouble and have garnered NO complaints. Would a city official lie in the public media? Why that never happens.
So are Westerville chicken foes overreacting, or did Bexley take leave of it’s collective senses?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Some notice in the press
Westerville explores chicken keeping
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 11:14 AM
By JENNIFER NESBITT
ThisWeek Community Newspapers
Residents chirping for city approval of backyard chicken keeping could see some movement on the issue in the coming year.
Spurred by an increase in residents asking about legalizing chicken keeping, the Westerville planning department has constructed a draft ordinance that would allow for and regulate the backyard agricultural use.
Existing city code allows for chicken keeping and other agricultural uses on lots that are 3 acres or larger and that are within areas zoned rural residential.
Staff members presented the plan to city council during a June work session, and they continue to explore the issue by looking at other cities to see what ordinances have been established and whether cities that allow backyard chickens field complaints or face problems because of them, city planner Lisa LaMantia said.
The issue is not at the forefront of the planning staff's work, though, she said.
"It seemed like we were getting more and more calls, and currently, they're not permitted, so we felt like maybe this was something we need to look into," LaMantia said. "We've been picking up things as we go along, as we see other communities deal with this issue, kind of absorbing what their approach is, looking at news articles."
Urban and suburban chicken keeping has been in the local news recently, with Bexley's city council voting to allow chicken keeping in December and Reynoldsburg's city council rejecting the issue in June.
The draft code created by the planning department would require a permit, which would be issued following inspection of where the chickens would be kept. It also would limit chickens to five per household and prohibit keeping roosters.
The chickens would be required to be kept in an enclosure, and noise and smell would not be permitted to bother surrounding property owners. Owners would not be permitted to sell chicken meat or eggs.
LaMantia said staff members could present code language to council for approval within the next year, depending on what other work the department has to complete. "It really just depends on what other things come before us," she said.
LaMantia's staff report emphasizes that the city has heard only from residents eager to keep chickens and not from any opposition, making it difficult to gauge the majority opinion on the issue. Her report also said staff members don't recommend approval or disapproval of any ordinance regarding chicken keeping.
Regardless, supporters of backyard chicken keeping said they are happy to see that the issue is being considered.
"I thought it was a good sign, and it speaks well to our city council that they asked the planning department to look into this and do the research," said Mark Passerrello, founder of the Westerville Area Chicken Keepers Society.
The group has 25 members on Facebook and a core group of supporters who are working to raise awareness about backyard chicken keeping.
Although the group is small, Passerrello said, its members are working to inform residents about chicken keeping, pointing out that it doesn't take much space, it's allowed in similar communities without problems and it doesn't create nuisance noise or smell.
"A lot of people aren't familiar with this idea, of keeping a few chickens in your backyard," he said. "It takes up as much space as a backyard vegetable garden. You can think about it in the way of 'I'm growing eggs the same way I would grow tomatoes or sweet peppers.'"
Passerrello said he believes the majority of residents likely wouldn't care about the issue, providing it wouldn't affect them. Others, however, are eager to keep chickens in their backyards and would like to work with city staff and council to make that legal, he said.
"It's not Walmart; it's not development; it's not a big thing, but there are some families in Westerville that would like to have their own chickens," he said. "We want to work with council. We don't want to approach this in an adversarial way. É I'm hoping that they're not thinking that this would just fade away and they won't have to deal with it."
Spurred by an increase in residents asking about legalizing chicken keeping, the Westerville planning department has constructed a draft ordinance that would allow for and regulate the backyard agricultural use.
Existing city code allows for chicken keeping and other agricultural uses on lots that are 3 acres or larger and that are within areas zoned rural residential.
Staff members presented the plan to city council during a June work session, and they continue to explore the issue by looking at other cities to see what ordinances have been established and whether cities that allow backyard chickens field complaints or face problems because of them, city planner Lisa LaMantia said.
The issue is not at the forefront of the planning staff's work, though, she said.
"It seemed like we were getting more and more calls, and currently, they're not permitted, so we felt like maybe this was something we need to look into," LaMantia said. "We've been picking up things as we go along, as we see other communities deal with this issue, kind of absorbing what their approach is, looking at news articles."
Urban and suburban chicken keeping has been in the local news recently, with Bexley's city council voting to allow chicken keeping in December and Reynoldsburg's city council rejecting the issue in June.
The draft code created by the planning department would require a permit, which would be issued following inspection of where the chickens would be kept. It also would limit chickens to five per household and prohibit keeping roosters.
The chickens would be required to be kept in an enclosure, and noise and smell would not be permitted to bother surrounding property owners. Owners would not be permitted to sell chicken meat or eggs.
LaMantia said staff members could present code language to council for approval within the next year, depending on what other work the department has to complete. "It really just depends on what other things come before us," she said.
LaMantia's staff report emphasizes that the city has heard only from residents eager to keep chickens and not from any opposition, making it difficult to gauge the majority opinion on the issue. Her report also said staff members don't recommend approval or disapproval of any ordinance regarding chicken keeping.
Regardless, supporters of backyard chicken keeping said they are happy to see that the issue is being considered.
"I thought it was a good sign, and it speaks well to our city council that they asked the planning department to look into this and do the research," said Mark Passerrello, founder of the Westerville Area Chicken Keepers Society.
The group has 25 members on Facebook and a core group of supporters who are working to raise awareness about backyard chicken keeping.
Although the group is small, Passerrello said, its members are working to inform residents about chicken keeping, pointing out that it doesn't take much space, it's allowed in similar communities without problems and it doesn't create nuisance noise or smell.
"A lot of people aren't familiar with this idea, of keeping a few chickens in your backyard," he said. "It takes up as much space as a backyard vegetable garden. You can think about it in the way of 'I'm growing eggs the same way I would grow tomatoes or sweet peppers.'"
Passerrello said he believes the majority of residents likely wouldn't care about the issue, providing it wouldn't affect them. Others, however, are eager to keep chickens in their backyards and would like to work with city staff and council to make that legal, he said.
"It's not Walmart; it's not development; it's not a big thing, but there are some families in Westerville that would like to have their own chickens," he said. "We want to work with council. We don't want to approach this in an adversarial way. É I'm hoping that they're not thinking that this would just fade away and they won't have to deal with it."
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A step forward in Oregon
The city council in Keizer, Oregon is doing the right thing-due diligence in getting a chicken ordinance put together. The article surveys other community's ordinances and enforcement experiences=bottom line, chickens are no bother, not burden ( but we knew that)!
Council kick-starts process to allow urban chickens | Keizertimes
http://keizertimes.com/?p=6181July 3, 2011
Photo Illustration by Andrew Jackson/KEIZERTIMES
Councilor Jim Taylor was the no vote. Conditions attached to the proposal include limiting owners to three hens and create a five-foot setback from all fence and property lines. Roosters would not be allowed.
Several public hearings remain before the city’s development code would change to expand the zones where chickens are allowed. Currently the birds are only allowed in agricultural zones.
More in Friday’s Keizertimes. For an in-depth look at the experience other cities have had with urban chickens check out our story below.
By JASON COX
of the Keizertimes
The urban chicken is up for debate at the Keizer City Council this coming Monday.
Judging by a January work session where councilors sought information – where both chicken lovers and opponents expressed their hopes and fears about the world’s most common bird – one can expect a cacophony of clucking both for and against the proposal.
Code Enforcement Officer Tony Casker of Keizer said his department’s concerns include not only odors and noise, but how the birds might be best contained to avoid the jaws of another common backyard animal – the humble dog. Staff will be proposing the yes or no question, and councilors would have to initiate a text amendment. It’s expected no permit process will be recommended and enforcement would be complaint-based.
“One concern would be proper containment,” Casker said.
But a funny thing has happened in almost every urban setting that allowed residents to keep chickens: Not much. Complaints haven’t spiked, and there doesn’t seem to be a flood of would-be chicken owners setting up coops. Codes enforcement staffers we spoke to throughout the Willamette Valley say more typical household pets like dogs and cats create dramatically more problems for them than chickens do.
There’s a few theories for the lack of flying feathers where the birds were allowed. One is that there simply aren’t that many people keeping urban chickens. Salem officials reported only 10 permits have been issued for coops, despite a two-year battle to lift the bird ban.
Another is that while chicken raising can be educational and fun – and, similar to gardening, satisfying – it’s not necessarily cost-effective. Depending on how you set it up coops can cost next to nothing or be quite the expense, and the cost of livestock
feed continues to rise as more corn is converted into biofuel.
That said, a representative from Wilco Farm Stores said he’s seen an uptick in sales from Salem-area stores after the Cherry City passed its urban chicken regulations. Some like
the idea of knowing where their food comes from, others may see it as a fun hobby.
Still others consider the chicken a good house pet.
Are the fowl foul?
The Keizertimes surveyed four Oregon cities along with Multnomah County, and sought information from the city of Keizer’s research into code enforcement and animal control problems posed by chickens.
With the exceptions of Multnomah County and Corvallis – the latter of which allows roosters, which made up the majority of reported problems – officials reported few or no complaints in the recent past regarding chickens.
One reason could be that most cities disallow roosters, the male bird that is known for its loud call, particularly in the morning. Of the 15 communities surveyed by city officials, only one – Corvallis – allows roosters.
Ordinances there “speak to noise generation,” said Chris Westfall, code enforcement supervisor for Corvallis. “What we do further regulate is that all animal waste has to be kept removed from the premises, and that no person shall keep animals in the city limits that cause excessive, frequent loud noises.”
And Michele Tracy of Corvallis Animal Control said complaints about rooster noise were “very frequent” last summer.
“We haven’t had many since then,” she added.
Limits on the number of birds allowed vary widely by jurisdiction. Corvallis, Lake Oswego and Lincoln City have no limits, yet several communities – including Salem – allow a maximum of three. The Cherry City finally allowed chickens last year after a protracted two-year battle. Some communities allow more.
Research by Keizer staff indicated chicken complaints are up in Salem since hens were allowed, in some cases neighbors turning in one another because they know licenses are required.
In Medford, about 10 percent of its 64 noise complaints in 2010 were chicken-related. Most were caused by roosters.
Eugene only allows two hens, but their code enforcement department has put a moratorium on enforcing the rule in what officials there painted as an experiment of sorts.
Interestingly, Eugene also had a law on the books for many years limiting households to two dogs each. That law was amended to allow up to three pooches, but Permit Review Manager Mike McKerrow said a Eugene City Council work session in April will discuss cutting that number back to two.
Indeed, McKerrow sees little difference – at least in terms of nuisance abatement – between dogs and chickens.
“You could have two dogs that just bark all the time and are an annoyance … or you might have three or four dogs that are well-managed and don’t create any impacts,” McKerrow said. “… Probably what’s more important is how the animals are managed.”
“The general idea is urban farming to grow more of your food and items that you need for living on your own property,” McKerrow said. “There’s a general interest in exploring that, and the city supports those kind of options, and in some cases that might mean modifying the codes the city administers.”
Beaverton officials had similar green motivations, and Code Enforcement Officer Mark Bennett there estimated the city got between 10 and 15 chicken-related complaints last year. They don’t specifically track chicken calls, instead putting them under the generic nuisance animal category.
“Dogs, definitely, are number one” in calls for service, Bennett said. “It could be barking, dog poop, aggressive dogs, someone thinking their neighbors are abusing the dogs.”
Yet in Multnomah County, the division that investigates poultry-related problems said chickens make up the majority of their agricultural animal-related complaints. The county enforces Portland’s law, which allows up to three hens without a permit and more with one.
There’s the rooster complaints that seem to pop up from time to time whether chickens are allowed or not in a particular locality. But at least in Multnomah the problem is poultry-at-large.
“It’s mostly chickens getting out of their coop,” said Ben Duncan, public information officer and program development specialist for Multnomah County Environmental Health.
The city of Dallas started allowing up to five hens per home in January 2010. And they have yet to see a single complaint. The birds are only allowed in low-density residential zones, must be in a coop and at least 10 feet away from the property line.
“We had gotten over the years calls from people as this movement has gained steam,” said Jason Locke, community development director for Dallas. “When we adopted it we didn’t all of a sudden have a bunch of chickens in the city limits. We have had two or three inquiries since.”
What would really change?
Considering Keizer already responds to illicit chicken complaints within the city, Keizer Community Development Director Nate Brown said in most cases the penalty for an illegal chicken versus an ill-kempt coop would be the same: A visit from the code enforcement officer, and fines if the property owner doesn’t take care of the problem. The city has yet to remove chickens from a property where they’re not allowed, Brown said.
“I think we may have issued a citation for a chicken,” Brown said. “But at some point it’s not worth it to fight the fight. And if chickens are allowed people are going to try to sneak in seven if three are allowed…. And we’ll have to deal with the same thing.”
Brown said he doesn’t plan to recommend licensing, as is required in Salem. But his proposal could include requiring – or at least suggesting – feedback from neighbors.
“If we foster communication in our neighborhoods by saying, ‘If you want chickens you need to go explain to your neighbors,’ it gets people engaged with their neighbors and it’s a positive thing,” Brown said.
Is the interest really there?
Judging by public testimony in both Salem and Keizer, urban chicken advocates come well-prepared and with a passion for raising the birds.
And David Dimick, a category manager for Wilco Farm Stores, said he’s definitely seen increased interest and sales of chicks and hens since the Salem ban was lifted.
But there’s other indicators that while there may be more coops than before, would-be urban farmers aren’t exactly beating down doors to have them.
Code enforcement officials in Salem had been getting about 30 chicken-related complaints per year, about 50 percent rooster-related. As of March 11, only 14 licenses have been applied for, and 10 approved.
“It was presented to our council as a groundswell movement,” said Brady Rogers, Salem’s Neighborhood Enhancement Division administrator. “There will be very little impact if these are the numbers that actually exist in our community.”
Some other areas report few inquiries about chickens, but unlike Salem most don’t require a coop permit, so it’s assumed not everyone with chickens is calling city hall.
There’s also the question of whether raising chickens versus buying your own eggs is cost-effective.
“My theory is raising your own eggs or meat is not always as cost-effective,” said Merle Stadeli, an area specialist in animal health and pet supplies for Wilco. “I think it’s more the idea people enjoy knowing where the egg or meat came from – it was raised under their management. … They like to go natural. I’m not saying the industry is bad, but that’s kind of the trend nowadays.”
Dimick said that, at least with Salem’s three-hen limit, the act would likely be cost-neutral. A pre-made coop can cost several hundred dollars, he said, but many people convert existing sheds or doghouses.
In addition, gardeners may find chickens helpful: They love to eat bugs, Dimick said, and once composted chicken manure is one of the best natural fertilizers out there.
But besides the inevitable cleaning that has to be done, there’s also other potential drawbacks: While Dimick said the sexing process is 95 percent accurate, occasionally a chick thought to be a hen grows up to be a rooster, and the male birds are banned in almost every urban setting due to their loud crowing. Luckily the male bird is only there to fertilize the egg; the ones you buy in the store are not fertilized and you don’t need one in a coop to get eggs. No matter who got the sex wrong it’s the owner’s responsibility to find a new home – or a stew pot – for the rooster.
Hens don’t lay eggs for their entire lifespan either; they start at about five months old and generally begin a steady production decline after two to three years of age. But they can live anywhere from five to 10 years, and occasionally longer than that.
But it’s not just about the practical benefits pro-chicken advocates tout, Dimick said.
“They turn them into pets. I wouldn’t call them like a dog or anything like that but a lot of people like to buy exotic breeds of chickens because they look weird,” Dimick said. “We sell a lot of different colors and breeds, chickens with feathers that come two inches out of their heads.”
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Denver does the right thing!
If it is good enough for the 26th largest city in the USofA, why not here?
Read more:Denver City Council eases way to own chickens, goats at home - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_18319369#ixzz1QQBDJYaO
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
DENVER COUNCIL CHANGES LAW
Denver City Council eases way to own chickens, goats at home
POSTED: 06/21/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
UPDATED: 06/21/2011 03:24:42 PM MDT
Four hens strut pass their egg laying shed at the Denver home of Sundari and Brian Kraft on Wednesday, May 4, The Krafts own seven hens and no roosters. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post)
Sundari Kraft feeds some of the hens she and her husband own in Denver. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post)
RELATED
- Jun 14:
- Denver City Council forum on proposed chicken ordinance draws a divided crowd
- May 10:
- Urban chickens scratch up a following along Front Range
- Apr 19:
- Denver council delays vote on rule changes for backyard chickens
- The biz of the birds 'n' bees
- Mar 28:
- Backyard chickens' popularity catches on
- Dec 13:
- Chicken coops on table at Denver city meeting
- Nov 22:
- Chicken coop brings lessons to Denver school
- Nov 2:
- Backyard-chicken fears just cage rattling, Longmont learns
- Feb 17:
- Greeley balks on allowing backyard chickens
- Mar 16:
- More cities welcome chickens
- Feb 24:
- A question of hen, not if, in Longmont
- Jun 5:
- Backyard-chicken backers rule roost in vote
- Jun 4:
- Fort Collins OKs backyard chickens
It will soon be easier to own chickens and goats in the city.
By a vote of 7-3, the Denver City Council on Monday approved an ordinance change that eases restrictions and eliminates some of the paperwork now faced by would-be urban homesteaders.
Denver residents can already legally keep chickens, ducks and goats. The vote Monday changes the permitting process and makes it easier — and cheaper — to own the animals.
Currently, Denver residents have tocomplete a permit process that requires them to notify their neighbors of their intention to own the animals and to pay a one-time, $100 permit fee and $50 a year for chickens and $100 a year for livestock, such as goats.
Monday's vote means that after the ordinance change takes effect, residents will pay only a one-time $20 license fee.
The license will allow them to keep up to eight chickens or ducks — but not roosters or drakes — and up to two dwarf goats without having to get a zoning permit or notify the public.
There were no men in chicken suits Monday evening testifying about the benefits of being able to own chickens as there had been in the past.
There were no elementary-school-aged children asking the City Council to approve the measure because the animals are cute.
Instead, a small contingent of urban homesteaders sat anxiously on the edge of their seats as council members debated the measure just one week after the council held a public hearing on the proposal.
Advocates, including some in the animal-control business, had argued that the change makes it easier to grow healthy food on a tight budget. Those who opposed the measure said that neighbors might be bothered by the presence of fowl and dwarf goats.
Sundari Kraft, an activist with Sustainable Food Denver, said Monday night that she was "just happy City Council listened."
Kraft said the change demonstrates "common sense."
Most City Council members didn't argue those points, but a few said they worried that people who might oppose the change hadn't heard it was being considered.
Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, who represents District 2, was one of three who voted against the changes. Faatz said she worried that only pro-chicken activists had heard about the proposed changes.
She said she would have preferred to let residents vote on the issue. "It would have been an ideal situation to have people decide themselves," she said.
Urban homesteading, the practice of raising chickens, goats and ducks in the city, is becoming increasingly common as people across the nation decide that raising animalsat home can help save money, provide them with safe meat and assure that the animals are treated humanely.
A city attorney said Monday night that residents who oppose the measure could file a referendum petition within 90 days if they can get signatures from 5 percent of the people who voted in the last mayoral election.
Liz Navratil: 303-954-1054 orlnavratil@denverpost.com
Read more:Denver City Council eases way to own chickens, goats at home - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_18319369#ixzz1QQBDJYaO
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Response to Council's Work Session
An email message sent to all Council Members and City Officials:
Let me first say that W.A.C.K.S. is very grateful for the time and attention you have given to the topic of backyard chickens thus far. It is clear that Council and the rest of city government are taking the right path in this issue-careful study. We applaud this!
First it is greatly encouraging that all council members, no matter what their attitude or reservations on this topic, want more information. Hearing from other communities that have taken the step of legalizing backyard hens will be very helpful. Since it is obvious that Council as individuals are not familiar with chickens first hand ( live, uncooked chickens, that is) it is imperative that all members visit a backyard set up or two and see how reality compares with perception. There is a simple reason the concept of backyard chickens is increasingly popular and working out successfully. Gather info first hand and you will see it!
Glad as we are as a group that council is giving this issue attention, it is disheartening to hear the discussion that went on at the recent work session. Legislators need to legislate, and regulators need to regulate, and it is clear that Council is making far more out of a few hens than need be made. To judge by the “What If’s” heard at that meeting, it would be logical to think the topic under consideration was a backyard crematorium or a personal nuclear power plant. Chickens in a suburban environment are unfamiliar, but not as problematic as some would represent them.
From a logical, reasonable stand point, they make less noise and waste than a dog, and should have the same level of regulation (low). It is unfortunate you did not allow some of the knowledgeable people present at your meeting to offer some assistance. A Westerville police officer in attendance that night echoed the fact that dogs are more bother than chickens would be: when a council member asked rhetorically ‘how many chicken complaints have we gotten’ the officer was quick to blurt out ‘none’. When the obvious follow up came ‘how many dog complaints do we get’ that same officer was even quicker to shout ‘HUNDREDS’. The chickens already living in Westerville, though they are technically illegal, are pretty good citizens , which is more than might be said for some dogs.
Council Member French mentioned set backs, and what might be the proper distance for a set back. It is important to note that set backs are legal smoke and mirrors. Their wording can add verbiage and length to an ordinance, but they are not an effective tool for establishing and maintaining good relations with neighbors. The only way that situation comes about is through a numerical limit on flock size, AND making sure the flock is well maintained. A poorly maintained coop will smell no matter were it is placed. The only useful part of set back ordinance is assuring that coops are not placed on property lines, and is best phrased as "coops must be XXX distance from adjoining residences".
Ms. French and several others mentioned predators. Do not for one moment delude yourself that predators-coyotes, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc are not present in Westerville. They are, and any citizen who does not secure their trash cans, who leaves pet food outside for wandering cats, or who feeds wild birds is helping to make them welcome. Chickens will not add to their presence. Chickens may draw them to a particular yard, but they are already in the neighborhood. Chickens that are properly housed, and that are feed only enough that they can clean up in a day (no left overs laying about) will not present a significant attraction for varmints. And in answer to Ms. French’s query about what the difference might be between chickens and a small dog or cat, the answer is there is no difference in the mind of a coyote, bobcat or even raccoon, These predators will take what they can get, and small dogs and kittens are eaten by them every day.
Mr. Jenkins wondered about lot size as related to set backs and how many birds would be appropriate on a given space. Lot size, like set backs, are a doge-they give the impression of control but in reality give none. To think that a certain lot size will guarantee clean and odor free conditions is a specious argument, like thinking a large home will allow a messy poorly organized person to stay tidy. It doesn’t work out in real life. Clean, odor free coops that cause no trouble with neighbors come about because the people that own them are conscientious about upkeep AND do not over load the coop with more birds than it can handle-hence the importance of flock size limits. Mr. French also spoke to permits and regulations. The idea of initial permits and multiple inspections seems highly unreasonable. This will take a great deal of time and effort and produce no real benefit. The question of how will city employees become informed about proper husbandry is also an issue (would Council consider a commission of appointed citizens, such as the Zoning board or shade tree commission?). Again , the matter of equitable treatment must be raised-a Westerville citizen who wants a Rottweiler, Great Dane or Newfoundland does not have to have multiple inspections or gain a permit, and those animals demonstrably produce more noise and manure than any small flock of chickens. ( A dog license is NOT a permit to keep a dog, it is a legal mechanism to assure that dogs have preventive medical treatment for a virulent disease, rabies).
One of the most disappointing statements made all night was when Mr. French said that he didn’t want Westerville to be cutting edge on this issue. Why not? Why can’t this city lead the way on something worthwhile? Mr. French obviously doesn’t want chickens himself and can’t conceive why others might-and he can’t see that the chickens are perched on the bigger issues of land usage and property rights. As communities grow and mature, their populations evolve and new trends come into play, considerations of land usage will be extremely important. Why shouldn’t Westerville be in the forefront of that discussion?
Mayor Coccuzzi thought the idea of chickens in a city inappropriate. She might want to speak to some of her constituents from the Greatest Generation, who remember that Victory Gardens yielded eggs and meat as well as vegetables. Chickens were a part of urban life that our grandparents would have been familiar with. The fact that chickens are “coming back” shows that good ideas cant be avoided. Her Honor the Mayor thought that people “don’t expect chickens in this kind of area“. It seems wise to point out that what we expect changes, just as the way we live “in this kind of area” changes. It was not so long ago that swimming pools and whole house air conditioning were for the rich, satellite dishes were the stuff of science fiction movies and no one would think of taking time and money to spray chemicals on their grass. Now any of these are standard suburban equipment. Things will not be as they were, that is a good thing.
Mr. Trenneff questioned if there was really enough public interest in this idea to warrant official attention. He needs reminded, strongly reminded, that Council serves the entire population of this city. Preserving the rights and privileges of all citizens, even if their number is small and their opinions and priorities do not line up with yours is the prime duty of an elected official. Mr. Treneff, just because a tax paying, vote placing Westerville citizen wants to live their life in a way you would never consider for yourself, that is no justification for you to turn your back on them officially. Besides, there seems to be prior precedent for Council acting on behalf of minorities: there must be swimming pools in fewer than 1/8 of Westerville properties, yet Council has written ordinances to protect them and the general population.
Mr. Trenneff also voiced a common rallying cry for those opposed to city chickens “ IF those people
want chickens they should move. He suggested moving to a township. It might interest him to know that the surrounding townships, far from being rural free-for-alls, have pretty strict agricultural prohibitions. What was really hurtful about his statement was that that he sounds so callous and flippant, when he basically says “If you don’t want to lead your life like I do, get out of town”. Is that really an appropriate line of reasoning for a leader of the community? Does he really want me to take my kids out of the school system, to remove my support from the organizations and community groups that we are a part of? Am I really to pull my funds out of the tax base and put my money into other communitie’s businesses and merchants? That is the message that is sent every time someone who is different is told “Get Out”.
Bottom line, given the real estate market, most people can not move, and I would say that few want to. They like this community and what it has to offer, they like the fact that their kids can walk to school, that we have a great library and park system, that the goods and services we want are close by.
Mr. Treneff’s pronouncement that chickens “ARE NOT PETS!” was arrogant and ludicrous. He may not want them, but those who have them have found chickens to be responsive, interactive companions with feelings, emotions and real personalities. Chickens keepers frequently comment that they got the birds for practical reasons-eggs or meat-and then found them to be fascinating, compelling and lovable. The fact that chickens working in the backyard are more fascinating than most television shows is a common anecdote. Any animals that a human being wants to add into their life is a pet, and chickens are far more responsive and interactive than a canary, goldfish or corn snake. Plus, they are the most practical of pets, since they provide food as well as companionship.
The Westerville Area Chicken Keepers Society wants again thank you for your continued work on this issue.
We look forward to observing Council’s future progress on this issue and want to offer every bit of support that we can. The group is eager to work WITH Council and City Government to make this proposal a reality.
Let me first say that W.A.C.K.S. is very grateful for the time and attention you have given to the topic of backyard chickens thus far. It is clear that Council and the rest of city government are taking the right path in this issue-careful study. We applaud this!
First it is greatly encouraging that all council members, no matter what their attitude or reservations on this topic, want more information. Hearing from other communities that have taken the step of legalizing backyard hens will be very helpful. Since it is obvious that Council as individuals are not familiar with chickens first hand ( live, uncooked chickens, that is) it is imperative that all members visit a backyard set up or two and see how reality compares with perception. There is a simple reason the concept of backyard chickens is increasingly popular and working out successfully. Gather info first hand and you will see it!
Glad as we are as a group that council is giving this issue attention, it is disheartening to hear the discussion that went on at the recent work session. Legislators need to legislate, and regulators need to regulate, and it is clear that Council is making far more out of a few hens than need be made. To judge by the “What If’s” heard at that meeting, it would be logical to think the topic under consideration was a backyard crematorium or a personal nuclear power plant. Chickens in a suburban environment are unfamiliar, but not as problematic as some would represent them.
From a logical, reasonable stand point, they make less noise and waste than a dog, and should have the same level of regulation (low). It is unfortunate you did not allow some of the knowledgeable people present at your meeting to offer some assistance. A Westerville police officer in attendance that night echoed the fact that dogs are more bother than chickens would be: when a council member asked rhetorically ‘how many chicken complaints have we gotten’ the officer was quick to blurt out ‘none’. When the obvious follow up came ‘how many dog complaints do we get’ that same officer was even quicker to shout ‘HUNDREDS’. The chickens already living in Westerville, though they are technically illegal, are pretty good citizens , which is more than might be said for some dogs.
Council Member French mentioned set backs, and what might be the proper distance for a set back. It is important to note that set backs are legal smoke and mirrors. Their wording can add verbiage and length to an ordinance, but they are not an effective tool for establishing and maintaining good relations with neighbors. The only way that situation comes about is through a numerical limit on flock size, AND making sure the flock is well maintained. A poorly maintained coop will smell no matter were it is placed. The only useful part of set back ordinance is assuring that coops are not placed on property lines, and is best phrased as "coops must be XXX distance from adjoining residences".
Ms. French and several others mentioned predators. Do not for one moment delude yourself that predators-coyotes, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc are not present in Westerville. They are, and any citizen who does not secure their trash cans, who leaves pet food outside for wandering cats, or who feeds wild birds is helping to make them welcome. Chickens will not add to their presence. Chickens may draw them to a particular yard, but they are already in the neighborhood. Chickens that are properly housed, and that are feed only enough that they can clean up in a day (no left overs laying about) will not present a significant attraction for varmints. And in answer to Ms. French’s query about what the difference might be between chickens and a small dog or cat, the answer is there is no difference in the mind of a coyote, bobcat or even raccoon, These predators will take what they can get, and small dogs and kittens are eaten by them every day.
Mr. Jenkins wondered about lot size as related to set backs and how many birds would be appropriate on a given space. Lot size, like set backs, are a doge-they give the impression of control but in reality give none. To think that a certain lot size will guarantee clean and odor free conditions is a specious argument, like thinking a large home will allow a messy poorly organized person to stay tidy. It doesn’t work out in real life. Clean, odor free coops that cause no trouble with neighbors come about because the people that own them are conscientious about upkeep AND do not over load the coop with more birds than it can handle-hence the importance of flock size limits. Mr. French also spoke to permits and regulations. The idea of initial permits and multiple inspections seems highly unreasonable. This will take a great deal of time and effort and produce no real benefit. The question of how will city employees become informed about proper husbandry is also an issue (would Council consider a commission of appointed citizens, such as the Zoning board or shade tree commission?). Again , the matter of equitable treatment must be raised-a Westerville citizen who wants a Rottweiler, Great Dane or Newfoundland does not have to have multiple inspections or gain a permit, and those animals demonstrably produce more noise and manure than any small flock of chickens. ( A dog license is NOT a permit to keep a dog, it is a legal mechanism to assure that dogs have preventive medical treatment for a virulent disease, rabies).
One of the most disappointing statements made all night was when Mr. French said that he didn’t want Westerville to be cutting edge on this issue. Why not? Why can’t this city lead the way on something worthwhile? Mr. French obviously doesn’t want chickens himself and can’t conceive why others might-and he can’t see that the chickens are perched on the bigger issues of land usage and property rights. As communities grow and mature, their populations evolve and new trends come into play, considerations of land usage will be extremely important. Why shouldn’t Westerville be in the forefront of that discussion?
Mayor Coccuzzi thought the idea of chickens in a city inappropriate. She might want to speak to some of her constituents from the Greatest Generation, who remember that Victory Gardens yielded eggs and meat as well as vegetables. Chickens were a part of urban life that our grandparents would have been familiar with. The fact that chickens are “coming back” shows that good ideas cant be avoided. Her Honor the Mayor thought that people “don’t expect chickens in this kind of area“. It seems wise to point out that what we expect changes, just as the way we live “in this kind of area” changes. It was not so long ago that swimming pools and whole house air conditioning were for the rich, satellite dishes were the stuff of science fiction movies and no one would think of taking time and money to spray chemicals on their grass. Now any of these are standard suburban equipment. Things will not be as they were, that is a good thing.
Mr. Trenneff questioned if there was really enough public interest in this idea to warrant official attention. He needs reminded, strongly reminded, that Council serves the entire population of this city. Preserving the rights and privileges of all citizens, even if their number is small and their opinions and priorities do not line up with yours is the prime duty of an elected official. Mr. Treneff, just because a tax paying, vote placing Westerville citizen wants to live their life in a way you would never consider for yourself, that is no justification for you to turn your back on them officially. Besides, there seems to be prior precedent for Council acting on behalf of minorities: there must be swimming pools in fewer than 1/8 of Westerville properties, yet Council has written ordinances to protect them and the general population.
Mr. Trenneff also voiced a common rallying cry for those opposed to city chickens “ IF those people
want chickens they should move. He suggested moving to a township. It might interest him to know that the surrounding townships, far from being rural free-for-alls, have pretty strict agricultural prohibitions. What was really hurtful about his statement was that that he sounds so callous and flippant, when he basically says “If you don’t want to lead your life like I do, get out of town”. Is that really an appropriate line of reasoning for a leader of the community? Does he really want me to take my kids out of the school system, to remove my support from the organizations and community groups that we are a part of? Am I really to pull my funds out of the tax base and put my money into other communitie’s businesses and merchants? That is the message that is sent every time someone who is different is told “Get Out”.
Bottom line, given the real estate market, most people can not move, and I would say that few want to. They like this community and what it has to offer, they like the fact that their kids can walk to school, that we have a great library and park system, that the goods and services we want are close by.
Mr. Treneff’s pronouncement that chickens “ARE NOT PETS!” was arrogant and ludicrous. He may not want them, but those who have them have found chickens to be responsive, interactive companions with feelings, emotions and real personalities. Chickens keepers frequently comment that they got the birds for practical reasons-eggs or meat-and then found them to be fascinating, compelling and lovable. The fact that chickens working in the backyard are more fascinating than most television shows is a common anecdote. Any animals that a human being wants to add into their life is a pet, and chickens are far more responsive and interactive than a canary, goldfish or corn snake. Plus, they are the most practical of pets, since they provide food as well as companionship.
The Westerville Area Chicken Keepers Society wants again thank you for your continued work on this issue.
We look forward to observing Council’s future progress on this issue and want to offer every bit of support that we can. The group is eager to work WITH Council and City Government to make this proposal a reality.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
City Council has their say
Westerville City Council meet on Tuesday night for a work session. First on their agenda was talk about a possible chicken ordinance. Fellow W.A.C.K.S. member Jason Parsons and I were there to hear what was said.
First, we need to count ourselves lucky that Council is talking about this, and willing to put time into study of the issue. Reynoldsburg recently took up the issue, and researched it, held public comment and decided not to pursue it all in one council session. Council has back burnered a chicken ordinance until the fall, but will keep it on their radar.
First the good news: at least two council members are what I would call "yes votes" or likely to become yes votes. Jennifer French and Eric Busch had some of the usual concerns, but seem most willing to consider the idea of chickens in the city. Not surprisingly-they are the most familiar with chickens, both knowing someone who knows someone who has chickens. They are open to information, and though all Council members want to visit a small urban flock these two are most eager to do it. If you feel ready to play host, let Council Member French or Busch know!
I would say Council Member Treneff is a "NO" vote in just about any circumstances He was quick to authoritatively state that chickens could not be pets, and that those who want to keep them "ought to move to a township". He is sure chickens will bring coyotes prowling our streets, and that hens will open the door for every other sort of animal.
The three other members present-Fosselman, Cocuzzi and Jenkins I would term undecided, but leaning no, especially Jenkins. Mayor Coccuzzi expressed the idea that "people don't expect chickens in an area like this".It seemed clear that these last four council members are not kindly disposed to new and evolving ways of living in the present day. One member of council Mr. Heyeck was not at the meeting.
It is important that the meeting was a discussion, not a vote. It is also important to note that all council members, even those that are not in favor of chickens are open to getting more information. Council wants to hear from other communities to hear how legal chickens have worked out in the long term. They also want to visit a small scale urban flock.
So a few steps have been taken. There will be more to do if the issue will be brought to a conclusion we approve of!
Next steps? I think more letters, from us and from our supportive friends and neighbors, to keep the issue in council's mind. Council Member Treneff questioned if there was enough community interest to justify the City's official attention. He needs reminded that elected officials have a duty to protect the rights of the entire population. They are elected by a majority to serve the entirety. This group needs to prove there is interest in this issue, and that what we seek-legal hens-can be a useful, trouble-free part of our community.
First, we need to count ourselves lucky that Council is talking about this, and willing to put time into study of the issue. Reynoldsburg recently took up the issue, and researched it, held public comment and decided not to pursue it all in one council session. Council has back burnered a chicken ordinance until the fall, but will keep it on their radar.
First the good news: at least two council members are what I would call "yes votes" or likely to become yes votes. Jennifer French and Eric Busch had some of the usual concerns, but seem most willing to consider the idea of chickens in the city. Not surprisingly-they are the most familiar with chickens, both knowing someone who knows someone who has chickens. They are open to information, and though all Council members want to visit a small urban flock these two are most eager to do it. If you feel ready to play host, let Council Member French or Busch know!
I would say Council Member Treneff is a "NO" vote in just about any circumstances He was quick to authoritatively state that chickens could not be pets, and that those who want to keep them "ought to move to a township". He is sure chickens will bring coyotes prowling our streets, and that hens will open the door for every other sort of animal.
The three other members present-Fosselman, Cocuzzi and Jenkins I would term undecided, but leaning no, especially Jenkins. Mayor Coccuzzi expressed the idea that "people don't expect chickens in an area like this".It seemed clear that these last four council members are not kindly disposed to new and evolving ways of living in the present day. One member of council Mr. Heyeck was not at the meeting.
It is important that the meeting was a discussion, not a vote. It is also important to note that all council members, even those that are not in favor of chickens are open to getting more information. Council wants to hear from other communities to hear how legal chickens have worked out in the long term. They also want to visit a small scale urban flock.
So a few steps have been taken. There will be more to do if the issue will be brought to a conclusion we approve of!
Next steps? I think more letters, from us and from our supportive friends and neighbors, to keep the issue in council's mind. Council Member Treneff questioned if there was enough community interest to justify the City's official attention. He needs reminded that elected officials have a duty to protect the rights of the entire population. They are elected by a majority to serve the entirety. This group needs to prove there is interest in this issue, and that what we seek-legal hens-can be a useful, trouble-free part of our community.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Fear the little chicks
A really poorly written piece from the Dispatch...once again, the animals are made out as the villians, when if people would just wash their hands, this "problem" would go away. The article makes it seems like the bird's fault, and that this outbreak is a big deal. The CDC estimates there are 1.2 MILLION cases of Salmonella each year. You are more likely to catch Salmonella from poorly cooked food than from a well-cared for chicken-especially if you wash your hands after being around the bird!
Salmonella linked to poultry hatchery
39 people likely sickened by contact with chicks, ducklings
Friday, June 10, 2011 03:08 AM
BY SPENCER HUNT
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
At least 39 people in 15 states have been sickened in a salmonella outbreak that has been linked to chicks and ducklings sold by an Ohio hatchery.
The sick include eight Ohioans. Nationwide, there have been nine hospitalizations and no deaths.
Ohio Department of Health officials said yesterday that a relatively rare strain called salmonella altona was found on baby birds that Mt. Healthy Hatcheries in Cincinnati sold to several agricultural supply outlets .
"It was an exact match," said Jen House, a Health Department spokeswoman.
Officials say an 8-year-old Franklin County boy and a 55-year-old Licking County woman are among those affected.
Some of the illnesses might have been caused by animals purchased as Easter pets for children, House said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are coordinating the multistate investigation.
Mt. Healthy Hatcheries officials said in a written statement that they are examining their suppliers and testing their own flocks for salmonella.
"We are committed to finding answers ... and we will work tirelessly to do so," the company wrote. "Chicks purchased from our hatchery should be considered as farm animals - not pets - and should be treated as such."
Salmonella can cause abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever and vomiting that last an average four to seven days. Symptoms can be more severe in people with weak immune systems.
As a result, the state is warning older people, children younger than 5 and those with weak immune systems not to handle chicks, ducklings or other live poultry. Adults and older children who handle poultry should quickly and thoroughly wash their hands.
People also are advised not to "snuggle or kiss" the birds, or eat and drink around live poultry.
Andy Ware, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium in the digestive tract of young poultry.
"Even if a young chick appears very healthy, it may still have salmonella," he said.
State agricultural officials sent a veterinarian to Mt. Health Hatcheries this week to look forsalmonella altona. Ware said tests have so far found no sign of the disease there.
Ware said the department will try to identify and eliminate the source of the salmonella. That does not involve destroying live birds, he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)