HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Ordinance Amendment - Chickens
To: Planning Commission
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: June 28, 2021
Item: Ordinance Amendment #2021-28– Amend Ordinances: 155 & 91 to Allow Keeping of
Chickens in Residential Areas
Planning Commission Action Requested
Hold a public hearing and review the attached amendments to Hastings City Zoning Code 155
and Animal Code 91, which would allow the keeping of chickens in some residential zoning
districts with restrictions and an administrative license.
History
In 2009, the Dakota County Historical Society made a request for the City to modify the
ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens at the LeDuc Estate (Zoned PI - Public Institution)
to interpret the agricultural aspect of William G. LeDuc’s life. Additionally, residents had
requested the proposed ordinance be amended to allow chickens in residential areas.
Ultimately, the City Council only approved keeping of chickens in the Public Institutional
District.
In addition to staff fielding regular inquiries by existing and potential residents, in 2019
some residents persuaded the City Council to reconsider the proposal. The Planning
Commission recommended approval, but the proposal failed approval by the City Council.
However, the Council sent the proposal to the Council Planning Committee for review. The
Committee recommended restarting the review process at the Planning Commission with a
revised ordinance amendment. The City Council did not review the recommendation of the
Committee, as there were not enough affirmative votes to remove the item from the table
on the February 3rd and March, 16, 2020 agendas. The tabled item was removed and heard
on June 7, 2021 with support from some residents and the City Council unanimously (6-0)
voted to refer this item to the Planning Commission.
Proposal
The attached ordinance amendment proposal includes changes to the existing keeping of
Chickens regulations, which were written 12-years ago and specifically for the LeDuc Estate.
Planning Commission Memorandum
The changes were based on direction from the June 6, 2019 Council Planning Committee,
along with feedback from other cities, City Attorney, and staff review.
The attached ordinance amendments generally affect the following:
1. Chickens may be kept on residential lots zoned R-1, R-1L, R-2, R-3 as follows:
a. Lots less than one acre may have up to four hens
b. Lots one acre or greater may have one hen per 10,890 s.f. (1/4 acre).
c. Keeping of roosters is prohibited within the City.
2. 5-year, Non-transferable license. Application requires a proposed plan for
administrative review by the Planning Department and the City Clerk with a $75 fee.
3. Renewal of license after the 5th year, if no recent violations.
4. Shelter and enclosure requirements including minimum Sq ft/ chicken, rear yards
only, 5-foot setback from property line, fencing, etc.
5. Conditions and maintenance requirements.
6. Revocation procedures and violation penalties
7. Several related changes to the location of some animal ordinance sections,
renumbering/ rewording of some sections, Fee ordinance update, added definition,
and amending the accessory structure permitting section to align with state and city
building codes and to clarify if or what type of permit is required for accessory
structures.
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 Estate, as part of an interpretive museum. Staff found that the number of cities
that allow residential chickens had quadrupled in the decade from 2009 to 2019 when this
proposal had previously been presented. Some cities that previously allowed residential
chickens have since reduced restrictions, mostly relating to renewals and neighbor approval.
Maplewood created a new set of ordinances aimed at embracing urban farming.
In 2009, staff identified 45 major cities in the country that allow urban chickens. In 2019 over
200 major cities allowed them. Below are some metro and major Minnesota cities that allow
backyard chickens:
Feedback from Other Cities
Staff has spoken to staff from the following cities that allow chickens in residential areas:
Rosemount, Anoka, South St. Paul, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, and Farmington.
They all reported they have not had any issues or complaints with the permitted chicken
owners. They have between three and fifteen permit holders with the average number being
about nine.
Knowing all their ordinances are slightly different, staff 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 known 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
substantial risk to the community.
Avian Flu
The CDC’s website states that there have only been a few cases of Avian Flu reported in
North America and the Avian Flu is not easily transferred to humans or between humans.
Bacteria
The most common bacteria to be carried by chickens is Salmonella, for dogs it is
Campylobacter, but does include Salmonella, both with similar symptoms and risks; The
result of contracting these bacteria include abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting,
chills, fever and/or headache. In 2018, there were six Salmonella outbreaks linked with
Burnsville
Farmington
Inver Grove- Heights
Mendota Heights
Eagan
West St. Paul
South St. Paul
Rosemount
Lakeville
Princeton
Coon-Rapids
Plymouth
Oakdale
Edina
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
Savage
Elko New Market
Otsego
Maplewood
Fergus Falls
Duluth
Cambridge
Stillwater
Roseville
Bayport
Ham Lake
Little Falls
Dawson
Frazee
Brainerd
Bloomington
Otsego
Fridley
Orono
Eden Prairie
Golden Valley
St. Paul
St. Paul Park
Anoka
Rochester
Waconia
Shakopee
Monticello
Minnetonka
backyard poultry in the country compared to 113 Campylobacter infections linked to
contact with puppies. Hand washing and sanitary conditions will generally stop the passage
of bacteria. The CDC says it is avoidable by properly handling food and washing hands after
handling all pets or after contact with feces.
Staff spoke to the Dakota County Public Health Department during past backyard chicken
proposals and they said there is no concern to public health from backyard chickens in the
numbers proposed (4 or 4/ acre). They added that owners should maintain the same hand
washing practice as they would for any pet.
Predation
Rich Baker with the (DNR) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reported that
backyard chickens would not increase the number of predators in a neighborhood. If the
predator is close, and can hear or see the prey, then they will obviously move that short
distance. He added that issues with predators can be addressed with a secured coup and
fencing.
Notification
A legal notice was published in the Pioneer Press, City website, City Facebook Page, and has
been reported in the Hastings Journal. Staff has received a few letters in support of the
proposal and an email opposed was sent to the planning Commission. (attached).
Attachments:
• Ordinance Amendment
• Comments
CITY OF HASTINGS, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION 155.07(I) AND
AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 91.02 A.1, 155.22, 155.22.5, 155.23, 155.24, 155.36
REGARDING THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS, RENUMBERING 91.35 TO 91.02 A.2 REGARDING THE
KEEPING OF GOATS AND AMENDING 155.02 AND 155.05 REGARDING PORTABLE ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS:
SECTION 1. Hastings City Code Section 155.07 (I) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Hastings City Code Section 91.02 A. 1. Keeping of Animals is hereby amended as
follows:
91.02 Keeping of Animals
It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal (other than cats and dogs), not in transit, in any
part of the city not zoned for agricultural purposes.
A. Exceptions.
1. Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) subject to § 155.07the following regulations.
:
a. 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 impact the character, health, safety
or general welfare of the surrounding area.
b. License required. No person shall keep chickens within the city on any
nonagricultural property without first obtaining a license from the city,
where permitted by the zoning ordinance. For purposes of this subsection,
“property” shall mean the lot or contiguous lots that are owned or controlled
by the applicant upon which the license shall apply.
c. Application. An application for a license to keep chickens shall be made to
the city clerk on the form prescribed by the city. The applicant must provide
all the information required on the form, including, but not limited to:
(1) The name and address of the owner(s) of the chickens and the owner
of the property where the chickens will be kept, if different;
(2) The number of chickens to be kept on the property;
(3) A scaled site plan or property survey showing the property
dimensions, the proposed location of the building and enclosed
outdoor area to house the chickens on the subject property along
with the dimensions of the building and enclosure;
(4) A drawing or picture of the proposed building to house the chickens
along with a list of the exterior materials for the building;
(5) Payment of the fee for the license to keep chickens as set forth in the
city fee schedule.
d. Granting issuance of license. The city clerk may administratively approve a
license or license renewal under this subsection if:
(1) The applicant has submitted the required documentation that meets
the requirements herein; and
(2) For renewal applications, the license holder has not had more than
two violations of this subsection within the previous 12 months.
e. Standards. Any person keeping chickens on nonagricultural property, where
permitted by the zoning ordinance, shall comply with the following:
(1) Up to four total hen chickens may be kept on any property of any size.
(2) Properties (a single lot or more than one contiguous lot combined)
that are more than one acre may keep one hen chicken per 1/4 acre
(10,890 Square feet).
(3) No person shall keep roosters on the property.
(4) The slaughter of chickens within the city is prohibited.
(5) The owner of the chickens shall live in the residential dwelling on the
property.
(6) Chickens more than four months old shall not be kept inside the
residential dwelling.
f. Shelter and outdoor enclosure requirements. Every person who owns,
controls, keeps, maintains or harbors hen chickens must keep them confined
on the premises at all times and provide them with a building to shelter the
chickens and an enclosed outdoor area. Buildings to house the chickens and
enclosed outdoor areas for the chickens shall comply with the following
standards:
(1) Chickens shall be provided with a secure well ventilated roofed
structure with a solid floor. The floors and walls of the roofed
structure shall be kept clean, sanitary and in a healthy condition.
(2) Only one building to house the chickens and one enclosed outdoor
area shall be allowed per lot.
(3) Buildings to house the chickens shall comply with the accessory
building requirements and standards in 155.05(D).
(4) Any device used for heating (i.e. heat lamps) within the building to
house the chickens must be properly rated for that use and secured
so as not to cause a fire hazard.
(5) Enclosed outdoor areas for the chickens shall not be located in the
front or side yards.
(6) Any building to house chickens and the enclosed outdoor area for the
chickens shall be set back at least five feet from all property lines.
(7) Fencing for the required enclosed outdoor area for the chickens may
utilize poultry netting fence. Fencing may be galvanized or earth tone
but shall not be bright colors and in no case can the fence be
electrified. Fencing for the enclosed outdoor area should be six feet
high to better protect the chickens from predators.
(8) Buildings to house the chickens shall provide for a minimum of 4
square feet per chicken. The enclosed outdoor area shall provide for
a minimum of 8 square feet per chicken.
(1)
g. Duration of license. A license to keep chickens shall be issued to the applicant
for a period of five years, so long as the license holder continues to own
chickens. The license is not assignable or transferrable. If the license holder
moves from the property but the chickens remain on the property, the new
owner must apply for a new license. If any license holder does not own
chickens for a period of one year, the license automatically terminates.
h. Conditions/maintenance and inspections. No person who owns, controls,
keeps, maintains or harbors chickens shall permit the premises where the
chickens are kept to be or remain in an unhealthy, unsanitary or noxious
condition or to permit the premises to be in such condition that noxious
odors to be carried to adjacent public or private property. Feeders and food
storage containers must not be accessible to rodents and wild birds. No
chicken shall be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury to persons or
other animals on properties in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth.
Any building to house chickens or enclosed outdoor area for the chickens
authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by
authorized city staff to inspect for compliance with this chapter and other
relevant laws and regulations.
i. Revocation of license. A license may be revoked by the city council for a
violation of any condition of this section following notice and a hearing as
provided for in this code.
j. Violations. Violations of this subsection are punishable with a misdemeanor
citation or civil or administrative penalties, as authorized by law.
2. (Prior Code, § 9.29) (Am. Ord. 2009-08, 3rd Series, passed 9-21-2009)
Penalty, see § 10.99
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code 91.35 Temporary Keeping Of Goats For Control of
Invasive Species and Other Weed Control Purposes is hereby renumbered as section 91.02 A. 2
and modified to provide that in 91.35.C.1 and C.4 a permit is required from the City Clerk and not
from the Community Development Department.
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Hastings City Code Section 155.22(B) is amended by adding
subsection (8) as follows:
§ 155.22 R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(8) Keeping chickens pursuant to 91.02
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.22.5 (B) is amended by adding
subsection (2) as follows:
§ 155.22.5 R-1L LOW DENSITY RESIDENCE LARGE LOT.
(B) Uses Permitted
(2) Keeping chickens pursuant to 91.02.
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.23 (B) is amended by adding subsection
(6) as follows:
§ 155.23 R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(5) Keeping chickens pursuant to 91.02.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.24 (B) is amended by adding subsection
(6) as follows:
§ 155.24 R-3 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(6) Keeping chickens pursuant to 91.02.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.36 (B) is amended by changing
subsection (8) as follows:
§ 155.36 PI PUBLIC INSTITUTION
(B) Uses Permitted
(8) Keeping chickens pursuant to 155.07 91.02.
SECTION 8. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.02 is amended by adding the following
definition:
Portable Accessory Structure. A lightweight structure without a fixed foundation that can easily
be moved by the owner.
SECTION 9. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.05.D.10 is amended as follows:
10. Accessory structures 120 square feet or less require a zoning permit. Structures over
120 Portable accessory structures 75 square feet or less do not require a permit, but must
meet applicable regulations. Structures between 76 square feet and 200 square feet
require a zoning permit. Structures over 200 square feet require a building permit.
SECTION 10. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 155.05.D.11. is amended by adding
subsection (c) to the Notes section of the table as follows:
§ 155 .05 APPLICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
(c) Portable accessory structures up to 75 square feet are exempt from the
allowable number of structures and total size limitations of this section.
SECTION 11. AMENDMENT Hastings City Code Section 34.03. is amended by moving and
changing the fee from Community Development to City Clerk:
City Clerk
Keeping of Chickens $75 five year license 2021
Community Development
Keeping of Chickens $100 annually 2010
SECTION 12. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the
case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance
is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the
City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance.
The ordinance amendment renumbers the keeping of chickens from the zoning ordinance
section to the City Code Animals and allows certain approved zoning districts to have up
to four hens on any sized property and for properties over one acre, there may be four
additional hens per acre. The ordinance establishes regulations and requirements
surrounding the chicken shelter and enclosed outdoor areas for the chickens. The owner
of the chickens is required to get a license, which is valid for 5 years and is non-
transferrable. The ordinance clarifies the accessory structure building sizes that require
permits. The ordinance also renumbers the temporary keeping of goats from 91.35 to
91.02.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon seven (7) days after its passage and publication.
Adopted by the Hastings City Council on this ___ day of _______, 2021, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
CITY OF HASTINGS
____________________________________
Mary Fasbender, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kelly Murtaugh
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the Ordinance presented to
and adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the ___ day of
________________, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the
office.
_____________________________
Kelly Murtaugh
City Clerk
From: Amanda Strausborger <amandastrausborger@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2021 7:50 AM
To: John Hinzman, AICP <JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Hastings backyard chickens
Good morning,
I fully support allowing backyard hens in Hastings. I urge you to as well.
Amanda Strausborger
Hastings resident
From: Becky Dammann <ComicBookDogs@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:48 PM
To: John Hinzman, AICP <JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Backyard Chickens
I live on the South edge of town. A small flock of chickens would hardly even be noticed, and I already have
neighbor's approval. They are excited about locally grown eggs!! Looking forward to progress in our city.
Becky Dammann
From: Timothy Lowing <tjlowing@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 9:13 PM
To: PublicComment <PublicComment@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Chickens
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Once again I'm writing in support of amending the city ordinance to allow chickens. So many cities across the
country have made this change and found it to be a non-issue. This will make many people in the community happy
without causing a burden on the city. It is not fair to continue to block this change simply based on a few vocal
opponents that voice irrational fears. Please base your decision on facts and research and don't assume chicken
owners will be irresponsible.
Sincerely,
Timothy Lowing
1187 Western Ct, Hastings, MN 55033
From: Bruce Karnick <maveric1369@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Mayor Mary <MayorMary@hastingsmn.gov>; folch@hastingsmn.gov; Jen Fox <JFox@hastingsmn.gov>; Lisa
Leifeld <LLeifeld@hastingsmn.gov>; Trevor Lund <TLund@hastingsmn.gov>; Lori Braucks
<LBraucks@hastingsmn.gov>; Mark Vaughan <MVaughan@hastingsmn.gov>; John Hinzman, AICP
<JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Backyard Chickens on the Agenda tonight.
Hello Mayor and Council.
I'd like to express my support of allowing chickens to be kept in Hastings city limits in a similar fashion to how
neighboring communities do. In particular, modeling the ordinance after a well-thought-out ordinance that is
currently used in Mendota Heights.
I'd like to point out, Mendota Heights started with allowing 4 hens and has recently upped that to 6 because they
found that there have been no issues with the keeping of chickens. My sister lives in Cannon Falls. Her neighbor has
4 hens in a coop maybe 75 feet from their house and she hears them maybe once a week. She said she kinda
wishes she heard them more because it is relaxing to listen to them coo and cluck.
I have *included the article written back on May 13th in the Hastings Journal as additional reading in support of
backyard chickens. Kept properly, they are a bigger benefit than most people know, and proper keeping is not that
difficult.
Thank you for your time!
Bruce Karnick
Owner / Entertainer
Maveric Music
651-398-2495
www.mavericmusic.com
President / Marketing Director
Hastings Hawks Baseball
www.hastingshawks.com
*Noted article link: https://www.thepaperboy.news/2021/05/12/what-are-you-chicken/?destination=hastings-
journal
From: Glenda Schnirring <gleners@embarqmail.com>
Date: June 15, 2021 at 11:55:34 PM CDT
To: jhinzman@hastungsmn.gov
Cc: Glenda Schnirring <gleners@embarqmail.com>
Subject: In opposition of raising chickens in the city
Hello Mr. Hinzmanm,
Todd Matzke, a member on the Planning Commission, directed me to you.
I have a huge issue with the threat of overturning an ordinance that forbids the raising of chickens in the city of
Hastings. This is a good ordinance which should be protected.
When one citizen has a passion for something that is not in compliance with “living in community”, and gets 240 or
so signatures to agree with her, it’s beyond disturbing to people like me.
I’m for doing things for Hastings that makes it a better city. There is no redeeming quality in having chickens raised
in its neighborhoods, setting neighbor against neighbor on a matter that should not be an issue.
The “wish” of this citizen has had more than its due attention. Discussion time on this provincial idea should cease.
It does not fit the profile of a prominent and thriving city. It creates a profile to the contrary, putting Hastings on
the map as not having grown up..
Hastings’ aspirations to trend up as a place to live, work and recreate, will not be attained if allowing chickens to be
raised in people’s back yards is permitted. They are barnyard creatures and belong in that kind of setting.
Thank you for your continuing service in Hastings governance.
Respectfully,
Glenda Schnirring
1136 15th St.W.
Hastings
Gleners@embarqmail.com
651-437-6246
From: Kori Colvin <kori.colvin1993@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2021 6:02 PM
To: John Hinzman, AICP <JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Chicken Ordinance
Dear City Planning Commission,
I am reaching out once more to continue demonstrating my support in the amendment of our current
ordinance regarding the keeping of chickens. I apologize for the lengthy email, but I want to ensure that I
have your continued support on the matter. If I do not, I want to change your mind, or at least attempt in
doing so.
It has been stated many times, but there are innumerable benefits of keeping backyard flocks of hens.
Chickens will provide their owners with nutritious and fresh eggs. The amount of food waste that goes into
our landfills will be decreased. Chickens will consume insects and weeds without the use of chemicals; and
by consuming all of that, their manure can be composted in as little as 45-60 days. These creatures are
personable and affectionate, providing a fun and educational experience while raising them to both children
and adults.
I have personally heard from the community, from those who support this change and from those who
oppose it. Those who oppose the change have a fear of allowing farm animals in the city due to several
misconceptions, all based on the fear of noise and/or odor. They view chickens as farm animals, livestock
only. This is not the case anymore, as in this current day and age chickens are family pets to many, just like
cats and dogs. These individuals have concerns that by allowing chickens into the city, everyone will
suddenly have large flocks; or that chickens will be let lose to roam neighborhoods and terrorize the
neighbors and their land. I understand where these worries come from, however, myself and many others
have provided evidence time and time again that these concerns can be invalidated.
The following question comes up again… If so many other cities and communities can allow their residents
to have flocks of backyard chickens, and are able to do so without issue of noise, odor, or complaints, why
is Hastings not able to do so? Do we have so little faith in our community?
Per the drafted ordinance, four chickens would be allowed on the average lot, and some exceptions are
made for lots over one acre: which I believe to be entirely fair. A single hen can produce roughly 45
pounds of manure a year, therefore a flock of four can produce 180 pounds of manure a year. All of which
can be composted. The average size dog produced 270 pounds of poop a year, none of which can be
composted and goes directly into our landfills. Chicken manure and associated bedding can be safely
composted in a composting bin, and easily done in ways to not produce odor. Yet it will produce compost
that is rich in vital nutrients for vegetable and flowering gardens.
Hens, the sex of chickens to be allowed, do not crow like roosters. They make little noise and are mostly
noticed only during their laying songs. Four hens, at most, will have a total of four laying songs per day.
That is only a few minutes per hen a day where they will make noise more than just a cluck, yet it is a noise
still only audible within an immediate area of 10 feet. Have you considered this to a barking dog or
yowling cat? Or a household playing loud music? Screaming children? Loud vehicles? Construction or
yard work? There are so many noises going on in our everyday life that the sound of a few hens laying an
egg will easily go overlooked, or not even noticed.
I also, highly doubt that every household in our city is going to have chickens. There are over 200
signatures on the petition for the city to allow chickens, and of those two hundred, not all want chickens
themselves – but do support it. Many cities that already allow chickens have under fifty households
licensed to have chickens. Hastings has a little over 9,000 households, and if we said a number of 50
households wanted chickens; only 0.56% of Hastings households would have chickens. Eagan has a
population of 66,000 residents, or around 26,000 households. Last time I spoke with their Animal Control
Officer, Jodie Opstad, they had under 25 licensed households with chickens. Despite some fear, there is not
going to be a chicken at every household.
Individuals have stated “I grew up on a farm and had chickens, believe me they smell!” This can be true,
chickens can smell. So can dogs, and the yards they poop in if they are not maintained. The other thing to
consider, is most farms that raise chickens, raise more than just four. Estimate more than twenty chickens
being raised on a farm at once, more if the eggs are being sold or the chickens are being eaten. Neither of
which would occur on residential lots in town. Raising chickens on a farm is quite different than raising
four hens in our backyards.
Chickens getting loose and roaming a neighborhood has been another remark made by several people over
Facebook, especially on the City of Hastings Government page. Owners are expected to look after their
animals they already have, such as dogs and cats. Would they not be expected to do the same for chickens?
Of course not, they would still be expected and required to properly enclose their animals in their coop and
run or fenced in yard. Once again, look at the data provided by the other cities that allow chickens. Jim
Schedin in Eden Prairie states they have had chickens since 2017 and average zero chicken complaints per
year, while they have over 350 dog complaints a year. Joe Alessi from Shakopee states that since 2017,
they have only had a total of 7 chicken complaints, and over 1000 other animal related calls. Wende
Ferguson from Blaine states they receive zero chicken complaints since 2016, and over 2500 other animal
related calls. Jodie Opstad from Eagan states they have received no chicken complaints since allowing
them in the city and stated they have had a successful experience with chickens that has brought their
neighbors together. Timothy Hunter from Edina says they receive fewer than 2-3 complaints per year. Ann
Boettcher from St Louis Park, states that since 2011 they have received only 3 complaints. They do not
have these issues; they do not have issues of lose chickens or issue of noise or odor. Why would we?
I, and many others, once again am asking for your continued or newfound support on changing this
ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens on residential lots in Hastings. This is a change wanted by
many and will be supported by those individuals. You will continue to see us on social media, around the
town, and at meetings. This is not like previous attempts, there are more of us, and we are determined to
see this through.
Thank you so very much for your time, and I look forward to your reply.
Kori M. Colvin
From: Kori Colvin <kori.colvin1993@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 10:51 AM
To: John Hinzman, AICP <JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Chicken Ordinance Amendment Proposal
To the members of Hastings Planning Commission,
I am writing to you firstly, to state my support of the adoption of a new ordinance regarding the keeping of chickens
to allow 4-6 hens to be kept on residential lots without unnecessary restrictions or permits. The city planning
committee/commission should look at the Mendota Heights Municode and Application/Permit as they have had great
success with their ordinance. They have a perfect example for Hastings to reference and potentially
use.(https://www.mendota-heights.com/vertical/Sites/%7BA0FB05B5-4CF8-4485-84AA-
0C48D0BC98D7%7D/uploads/Domestic_Chicken_Permit_Application_UPDATED_Feb_2020.pdf)
I'd like to state a few items I'd like to see from the drafted ordinance, and will include some valuable information to
support this change.
• Allowance for up to SIX (6) hens.
o On a parcel or on a lot. No acreage requirement: 6 chickens per lot. Requiring an acre or more for 4-
6 hens is excessive as they are able to comfortably live in 2-4 square feet for coops and 5-10 square
feet for run space.
• Roosters shall continue to be prohibited.
• Slaughtering of chickens will not be allowed on the owners property.
• Chickens will not be kept or used for fighting.
• Chicken waste and associated bedding shall be allowed to be composted on the owners property, in a
manner that will not cause an issue with odor. Composting will be done in an appropriate composting bin or
container.
• Neighbor Notification to not be included or required.
o Neighbors are not required to be notified if a home owner gets a dog, cat, loud vehicle or motorcycle,
plays loud music, has parties, etc. Home owners are able to do almost anything on their own
property without ever having to notify their neighbors, even if the activity can disrupt their neighbor.
The noise caused by 4-6 hens is less than a singular dog, and therefore should cause little to no risk
of noise disturbance. Many cities who have successfully adopted an ordinance to allow chickens do
not require neighbor notification.
• Permit and application required. An applicant will be required to fill out an appropriate application and
provide the necessary information relating to it. They shall submit this information to a city clerk or official for
review and either approval or denial.
o Consider not requiring property inspection, or only after coop and run completion.
• Coop and run location shall be in the backyard, subject to being off the property line by 5-15'.
o Please consider the average lot size of our Hastings residents, as requiring coops to be more than
25' from the property line could lead to the incapability of housing chickens on the average sized lot.
I highly encourage the planning committee/commission staff to reach out to Alex Sharpe of Apple Valley. This
individual has stated, that since Apple Valley is in the process of adopting a new chicken ordinance, they have
already completed most of the research required and has offered to share the data he and the city has obtained to
save Hastings crucial time. (952) 953-2569
I also recommend the planning committee/commission to reach out to Abby Schuft, an Extension Educator at the
University of Minnesota, Poultry Extension. She can provide very valuable information for our city as a draft is
created. neux0012@umn.edu
Thank you,
Kori Colvin
The above letter was also received from Alyssa Stadtler
From: Alyssa Stadtler <astadtler@mn-dcc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 10:59 AM
To: John Hinzman, AICP <JHinzman@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Chickens Please