HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Ordinance Amendment Keeping of Chickens
To: Planning Commission
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: April 22, 2019
Item: Ordinance Amendment #2019-09 – Amend Ordinances: 155.07, 155.22, 155.24 &
155.36- Keeping of Chickens
Planning Commission Action Requested
Hold a public hearing and review a proposed amendment to Hastings City Code Chapter 155.07
- Special Provisions, R-1 Low Density Residence, 155.22.5 – R1L Low Density Residence Large Lot,
155.22 – R-3 Medium High Density Residence, and 155.36 – PI (Public Institutional).
The amendment would continue to allow the keeping of chickens in the Public Institutional
district and only modify the existing ordinance slightly. The principle change proposed to the
ordinance would allow the potential use in residential single-family districts of the city.
History
In 2009, the Dakota County Historical Society made a request for the City to modify the
ordinance to allow chickens to be kept at the LeDuc Mansion to interpret the agricultural
aspect of William G. LeDuc’s life. Additionally, a resident had requested the proposed
ordinance be amended to allow chickens in residential areas. The Planning Commission had
recommended approval of the proposal and the City Council had only approved the use in the
Public Institutional district. There were some citizens who spoke for and against the proposal.
Since that time, the City has received one to three calls per year asking if keeping chickens is
allowed in the city. Recently, some residents have reached out to elected officials asking for the
matter to be reconsidered. The City Council Planning Committee met recently and authorized
staff to bring the request forward for consideration.
OTHER COMMUNITIES
Many Cities like Hastings adopted their first zoning codes in the first half of the 20th century and
limited traditional farm animals to agricultural districts. In the last two decades, many cities have
modified their ordinances to allow chickens in nonagricultural districts. This is for a variety of
reasons including recent immigration of diverse cultures, increased focus on local organic food,
concerns about the treatment of production chickens, as pets, or in the case of the LeDuc, as part
of an interpretive museum. Staff has found that the number of cities that allow residential
chickens has tripled in the decade since this was last reviewed in Hastings. Some cities that
Planning Commission Memorandum
previously allowed residential chickens have gone back and reduced restrictions previously
imposed on them. Maplewood created a new set of ordinance aimed at embracing urban
farming.
Some large cities that allow chickens in all or most zoning districts include:
Mobile, AL
Berkeley, CA
Long Beach, CA.
Los Angeles, CA.
Oakland, CA
Sacramento, CA.
San Jose, CA
San Francisco, CA
Denver, CO
Hartford, CT
Miami, FL
Atlanta, GA
Des Moines, IA
Sioux City, IA.
Boise, ID
Chicago, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Topeka, KS
Louisville, KY
Boston, MA
Baltimore, MD
Ann Arbor, MI
St. Louis, MO
Raleigh, NC
Lincoln, NE
Omaha, NE
Albuquerque, NM
Santa Fe, NM
Las Vegas, NV
NY, NY.
Eugene, OR
Portland, OR
Pittsburgh, PA
Nashville, TN
Austin, TX
Dallas, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Houston, TX
San Antonio, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Burlington, VT
Seattle, WA
Spokane, WA
Green Bay, WI
Madison, WI
Some local cities that allow chickens in residential zoning districts include:
Burnsville
Farmington
Inver Grove
Heights
Lakeville
Mendota Heights
Orono
Minnetonka
Bloomington-(in
Process)
Otsego
Edina
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Eagan
Minneapolis
Savage
Elko New Market
Otsego
Maplewood
Fergus Falls
Eden Prairie
Golden Valley
St. Paul
Rosemount
Anoka
Rochester
Waconia
Shakopee
Duluth
Monticello
Roseville
West St. Paul
South St. Paul
Bayport
Ham Lake
Little Falls
Dawson
Frazee
Brainerd
While there are some outliers that have virtually no restrictions or permits required. The
above cities regulate chickens with different ordinances, but the following are common
inclusions: Up to four or five hens, no roosters, some require 60%-80% of neighbor
approval, fenced containment, secure coops, administrative or Council permits, setbacks.
Feedback from cities that allow chickens in residential areas
Staff has spoken to staff from the following cities: Rosemount, Anoka, South St. Paul,
Lakeville, Inver Grove Heights, and Farmington.
They all reported they have not had any issues or complaints with the permitted chicken
owners. The have between three and fifteen permit holders with the average number being
about nine.
Knowing all their ordinances are different, I asked them in general what they would change
about their ordinance. Most of them said nothing, but those with yearly renewals said they
regret that aspect. They said no issues are found during the renewal and it creates an
additional fee for the permit holders. When asked if they have had any complaints, they all
responded that there has been none.
HEALTH RISKS TO HUMANS
There are two know types of afflictions that could be carried by chickens and transmitted to
humans. The first is the Avian Flu and the second is bacteria. Neither appears to be a risk
to the community.
Avian Flu
There have only been a few cases reported in North America. The Avian Flu is not easily
transferred to humans or between humans. The CDC has released the following statement:
“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.”
Bacteria
The bacteria that chickens could carry may also carried by household pets and humans.
Hand washing and sanitary conditions will generally stop the passage of bacteria. The most
common bacteria to be carried by chickens is salmonella; The result of contracting
salmonellosis from salmonella includes abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting,
chills, fever and/or headache. The CDC says it is avoidable be property handling and
cooking food and washing hands with soap after handling reptiles, birds, or after contact
with pet feces.
Staff spoke to the Dakota County Public Health Department in 2009 and they said there is
no concern to public health from backyard chickens in the numbers proposed (4). They
added that the owners should maintain the same hand washing practice for any possible
feces contact that any pet owner would.
Notification
A legal notice was published in the Hastings Star Gazette along with KDWA reporting on the
proposal. Staff has received one letter in support of the proposal (attached).
Attachments:
• Ordinance Amendment
• Letter of Support
155.07
(I) Keeping of chickens. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this division is to provide a means, through the
establishment of specific standards and procedures, by which chickens can be kept in
areas that are principally not used for agricultural. It is recognized that the keeping of
chickens is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use and will not be allowed
to negatively affect the character, health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding
area.
(2) Notice. Consult your Home Owners Association if applicable, as they may
prohibit the keeping of chickens or the improvements required by this ordinance to
keep them. Pursuant to City Code Chapter § 91.33 Cruelty to Animals, no person shall
torture, neglect, injure or abandon any animal.
(3) Regulations. The keeping of chickens requires a license to be granted by
the City Council. The following conditions are requirements of the license:
(a) Allowed in specified zoning districts as an accessory use to a school or
museum;
(b) No roosters permitted;
(c) Four chickens are allowed per acre. Chickens are prohibited on
properties less than 1 acre; and
(d) Confinement restrictions. Chickens must be kept and confined as
follows:
1. Fenced area to keep the chickens contained on the property at all
times;
2. Food containers and Feeders must not be accessible to rodents and
wild birds;
3. Food storage containers must be kept from access by rodents
4. Sanitary conditions must be maintained;
5. Fecal matter shall not accumulate in a manner that causes odor;
6. Injury or annoyance to others. No chicken may be kept or raised in a
manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons or other animals on other property in
the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth;
7. Impounding chicken. Any chicken at large or in violation of this
section may be impounded by the city, and after being impounded for 5 business days or
more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be humanely euthanized or sold without
notice. Failure to claim an impounded chicken may result in the revocation of the license. A
person reclaiming any impounded chicken shall pay the cost of impounding and keeping the
same; and
3. Covered enclosure (coop) must be provided to protect chickens from
the elements and predators. The required enclosure must meet the following requirements:
(a) All accessory building regulations under § 155.05(D);
(b) Completely covered, secured and with a solid floor; and
(c) Setback 25 feet from homes on adjoining lots.
(3) License. Keeping chickens requires a license to be granted by the City Council.
(a) Staff shall notify property owners within 350 200 feet of the subject
property at least seven days prior to the hearing Planning Commission meeting, at which
a recommendation will be made to the City Council for granting of a license. Failure of a
property owner to receive the notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set
forth within this code.
(b) The license shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable.
(c) If the license is approved by the City Council, staff shall inspect the
property to determine if all of the provisions of this section are met prior to issuing the
license.
(d) Licenses shall be issued for a 1 one year probationary period from the
date of City Council approval. The City Council shall consider issuance of a full license at
the end of the probationary period.
(e) Licenses shall be renewed every five years
(f) The City Council may revoke the license if the conditions of this
section is not followed or if unresolved nuisances arise.
(g) An annual license and renewal fee shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of the license. The annual license fee shall be established by ordinance ($100 and $50 respectively proposed). (Prior Code, § 10.14) (Am. Ord. 2007-05, 3rd Series, passed 9-4-2007; Am. Ord. 2008-6, 3rd Series, passed 3-17-2008; Am. Ord. 2009-08, 3rd
Series, passed 9-21-2009; Am. Ord. 2010-08, 3rd Series, Passed 6-21-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 155.22 R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(8) Keeping chickens pursuant to 155.07. (This automatically carries to R-1L and R-2)
§ 155.24 R-3 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(6) Keeping chickens pursuant to 155.07.
From the animal Ordinance 91, no changes proposed:
§ 91.02 KEEPING. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, not in transit, in any part of the city not zoned for agricultural purposes. (A) Exceptions. (1) Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) subject to § 155.07.
(Prior Code, § 9.29) (Am. Ord. 2009-08, 3rd Series, passed 9-21-2009) Penalty,
see § 10.99 (2) Temporary Keeping of Goats subject to §91. 35.
From:Timothy Lowing
To:Justin Fortney
Subject:Chickens
Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:08:06 PM
I am writing in support of allowing residents to keep a small number of chickens in
residential areas, without unnecessary restrictions or permits. Small backyard flocks play
an important role in sustainable, organic gardening. They naturally provide fertilizer, reduce
weeds, and help to control damaging insects, including Japanese beetles.
Although some have opposed the idea in the past, I don’t believe any of the fears
expressed will become an issue for the city. A small number of hens are not noisy. I
certainly don’t call the city whenever the neighborhood erupts with dogs barking at night, so
their soft purring and clucking is not likely to cause any problems. As for the concerns with
odor or attracting rodents, the small numbers will keep those issues in check. With proper
care and cleaning, they will generate less problems than dogs, cats, and bird feeders.
I am hopeful that our new mayor and city council members look at this issue with an open
mind, and look to the success of so many other cities that have allowed chickens for many
years.
Sincerely,
Tim Lowing