North Port Nixes Hens Again

Despite strong support from Commissioner Yates and Mayor Moore, the North Port City Commission once again sunk an effort to have staff draft a backyard hen ordinance based on the successful experience of the City of Sarasota. 

Commissioner Cook's objection to my being able to speak for more than three minutes signaled her continued, and strident, opposition to backyard chickens and Commissioner Tom Jones seemed concerned about the possibility of residents living in mandatory Homeowner Associations (such as Sabal Trace) being unable to prevent poultry. (The City of Sarasota makes it clear that mandatory HOA regulations take precedence over the Citys' ordinance.) That left former supporter Vice Mayor DiFranco, a former chicken owner, as the swing vote. 

Commissioner DiFranco argued that while she had supported backyard hens previously, contact with the community had convinced her that the majority of North Port residents opposed hens. 

Her argument was bolstered by the fact that only three North Port residents argued strongly for hens, and they were offset by three residents (including the ever-entertaining and feisty Buddy Hughes) who argued against. Another citizen thought chickens could be appropriate on large lots with tight regulation. 

Opponents frequently cited property rights ("I don't want to look at coops or cows.") and a concern about property values, although no information or testimony has been brought forward at any level that backyard hens decrease property values. In fact, a recent article documents the fact that chicken coops are being included in some real estate ads as amenities. 

One prominent Sarasota realtor has said "If your neighbor has three lawn ornaments or paints their house pink, that will have more effect on the ability to sell your house than if they have backyard chickens." 

Research presented in a comprehensive study of 100 cities that allow chickens concluded that: "As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them."*

Commissioners Moore and Yates will need more citizen support if they are to challenge Commissioner DiFranco's conclusion that the community support just isn't there. Of course, the majority of Sarasota City residents never said they favored chickens -- proponents simply demonstrated that allowing chickens posed no discernible threat to residents.

*Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens by Jaime Bouvier 
Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. 

North Port: One Vote Short

On Monday May 13th, 2013, the North Port City Commission fell one vote shy of getting ahead of the pet chicken phenomenon, a vote they may come to regret. With Commissioner Tom Jones still not back on the dais, measures need a 75% (3-1) approval rating to pass instead of the usual 60% (3-2). As a result the group deadlocked 2-2 and the measure failed when Commissioner Blucher switched his vote from the first reading. 

Commissioner Blucher started the questioning inquiring if the chickens could just be wandering free-range when not in the coop. Commissioner Cook wanted to know if people who wanted chickens would have the obtain permission from the owners of undeveloped neighboring lots. 

Citizens speaking in opposition seemed to be using chickens as proxies for other complaints they have with the City or their neighbors. One gentleman complained about four or five families living on one house. Entertaining and erratic former Commissioner Buddy Hughes managed to talk about a shopping center, cholesterol, and her cats. She said she "looked it up on the internet" and found chickens were "noisy, smelly and poop all over".

Several citizens spoke in favor and several mentioned the wild birds and other animals found in their yards that should pose a well-contamination risk comparable to the one hypothesized by Commissioner Cook. They also hit on the basic fairness theme and their right to keep animals so long as they weren't a nuisance. Angela Funes deserves lots of credit for stepping up and working to organize supporters by creating the NP City Chickens Facebook page.

Once they closed the public hearing it became evident the measure was in trouble, even though staff had delivered what the Commissioners had asked for: a requirement to have neighbor permission without burdening permitting staff. 

Commissioner Cook had a long list of complaints and concerns starting with her lingering disappointment that staff never took time to address the theoretical concern that chicken droppings could somehow contaminate wells. She wanted all neighbors to have to give permission, questioned compost, and alluded to some chicken problem in China. And then, apparently in a effort to show she was reasonable, suggested one chicken might be okay as pet and observed that she would be more likely to consider this if the gated communities wanted chickens -- which is roughly comparable to arguing that prayers should become a regular part of the school-day when atheists demand it. She finished by expressing concern that this "might open the door to zoning issues". 

Chicken owner and supporter Commissioner DiFranco spoke next, lamenting the fact that people are not taking care of their animals. She mentioned overbreeding and people walking away from their pets. She pointed out that even if North Port had as many code enforcement staff as Sarasota, the far larger territory complicated matters and made it more important that people police themselves. 

Commissioner Blucher observed that he had been non-committal to start with, but that he had heard from a lot of people since the first reading and had concluded "the majority do not want" chickens, without commenting on whether American governments exist to impose the preferences of the majority or protect the rights of the minority. He expressed concerns about enforcement and raised, for the first time, the issue of flies*. It was obvious he was going to switch his vote.

Mayor Yates, reading her peers, stated that 34 people had contacted the commission in support and only a handful opposed. She stated it was a private property rights issue and pointed out that banning chickens wasn't going to solve other animal issues in the City. She said it was unfortunate and sad that the measure was going down and repeated her plea to give it a try. But when the board flashed it was 2-2. 

---------------

CLUCK's North Port chicken prediction: Chicken complaints in North Port will increase, possibly dramatically. There are two reasons for this: first, all the media coverage and outcome (chickens are illegal) will drive a wave of complaints about pre-existing chickens (that previously may have been thought to be okay) and 2) people who wanted to color inside the lines and supported a reasonable ordinance will simply give up on their government and just get chickens anyway. For people like Commissioner Cook and former Commissioner Hughes, this will elicit a "see, I told you so" response. 

The North Port chicken community will continue to grow and organize (the Facebook page has 51 "likes" as of this posting) and eventually, possibly when a new Commission is seated, the Commissioners will realize it makes more sense to provide reasonable accommodations for backyard hens so that code enforcement can focus on real problems like animal abandonment, pet hoarding, animal abuse, and cockfighting. 

---------------

*FLIES

CLUCK wishes Commissioner Blucher had raised the fly issue sooner, since chicken waste can attract flies. Here is one chicken keepers experience:

I go for weeks or months with no noticeable fly problem. That convinced me my hens weren't creating a problem because their numbers are constant. Then all of a sudden there will be droves. At first I thought it was the weather - maybe drought suppressed flies. But eventually I realized my chickens were not creating the fly problem - they were the victims. 

Here's what I've figured out is going on: Some one throws out a lot of chicken carcasses from a barbecue, or they gut their fish when they get home, and they drag the garbage out to the curb where attracts flies that lay eggs. Or a raccoon or opossum gets hit by a car and crawls off to die. Soon it is crawling with hundreds, if not thousands, of maggots that turn into hundreds or thousands of flies. Those flies hatch out and need to find a place to lay their eggs. 

Here's where my chickens come in. The flies bred elsewhere show up in my yard, only to find tiny quarter-sized chicken droppings. Any port in a storm. So I end up doing the fly-trapping -- putting a stop to a fly problem generated by my neighbors or road-kill. Instead of chicken owners CREATING a neighborhood fly problem, they are the people motivated and equipped to STOP a neighborhood fly problem. 

North Port One Vote Away From Legalizing Chickens

The North Port City Commission, minus Commissioner Tom Jones, met on Earth Day (April 22nd, 2013) and the agenda included the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would allow backyard chickens in single family residential areas.


After fourteen open-to-the-public comments (that included testimony from four former City Commissioners!), the commission took up Ordinance 1013-03. Staff introduced the measure pointing out that it differed from the City of Sarasota approach by allowing more chickens (six instead of four) and restricting chickens in North Port to single family residential areas while Sarasota allowed chickens in "all residential areas".1

Mayor Yates, a known supporter, started the conversation asking where the inspections and permits came from since they were not in the City of Sarasota ordinance. The answer was that they were recommended by the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. 2

The Mayor wanted to make sure that the prohibition on egg sales did not apply City-wide where if could affect Farmer's Markets. 

Commissioner Blucher questioned six, not four and wondered if the permitting would necessitate adding staff.

Commissioner Cook seemed disappointed in staff responses to PZAB concerns.

Commissioner DiFranco asked about the current staffing levels of code enforcement and animal services.

Mayor Yates pointed out that no permit was needed in Sarasota and people could have dog houses, bird cages, potbellied pigs, and parrots in North Port without getting a permit. Commissioner Blucher countered that a there was no North Port permit for a goat either (because goats are illegal). 

The Commission then took testimony from the public, which ran about three to one in favor of chickens.   Those arguing in opposition tended to use two lines of argument, enforcement challenges and property rights, although there was one individual who cited bird flu in China as a reason not to act. The majority of those speaking in opposition were adamant that chickens are "farm animals" and not pets.3  Planning Commissioner Maturo earned a rebuke from the Mayor when he rudely began to attack the testimony of an earlier speaker. 

Former Commissioner and current PZAB member Fred Tower testified that he was neither for nor against, but that he had talked to a relative in Oshkosh and there all three neighbors had to give approval.

At the close of public testimony, Mayor Yates passed the gavel to Commissioner Blucher and added language prohibiting sale of eggs "at a residence". She argued that "all had been said" and the City should give it a try because it was working well in Sarasota. 

Commissioner DiFranco offered a balanced response, noting that chickens are a lot of responsibility and that she feared chickens would be abandoned after the novelty wore off. She was concerned about enforcement and stated she couldn't support six.

Commissioner Cook revealed she had a chicken as a child, but that not all chickens were docile. She went back to the list of PZAB concerns that she felt had not be adequately addressed by staff. 

Commissioner Blucher stated that he had problems with this proposal from day one. He enumerated a number of concerns including staff needed to enforce, six chickens being too many, and the fact that North Port, unlike the City of Sarasota, already had an area (the Estates) that allowed chickens. But he tempered his comments with an observation that he wasn't worried about noise and thought it would be a good thing for kids. 

Since Commissioner Jones was absent, passage would require 75% of those present to vote in favor (more than the usual 60%) and it was pretty clear six chickens weren't going anywhere. 

Mayor Yates tried to amend to four chickens, but there was a parliamentary question. That got sorted out yielding an amendment to reduce the number from 6 to 4 and requiring approval from neighbors. Commissioner Cook stated she was still not on board, citing the cost to regulate and the possibility that chicken droppings could contaminate wells. Staff was empowered to iron out details prior to the second reading on May 13th at 1:00 pm and both the amendment and main motion passed three to one with Commissioner Cook voting Nay.

1 That turned out not to be true. The City of Sarasota clearly states chickens are "accessory to a residential single-family structure".

2 Actually a PZAB member at the April 4th meeting asked staff if permits would be required, and a staff member answered in the affirmative. That was the start of permitting being added.

3 That argument suffered a serious blow later in the Board discussion when Commissioner DiFranco revealed that she owned a "pet chicken". 

CLUCK Responds to North Port Chicken Concerns

Based on Testimony and Questions at the April 5th Planning and Zoning Advisory Board meeting City Staff identified eight concerns raised by the PZAB. Listed below are those concerns and some preliminary CLUCK responses along with selected excerpts from Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens, (a 33 page objective review of chicken keeping in the top 100 most populous cities in the United States) by Jaime Bouvier, who is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC.

CLUCK presents this analysis in advance of the City of North Port hearing that will take place at 6:00 pm. on Monday April 22nd. 

1) Who will regulate cage specifications? Coop or cage specifications in the City of Sarasota are, for the most part, performance-based. While there are specific square foot requirements, other requirements can be solved by the owner. For instance, the coops must be movable, but it does not specify if that has to be using wheels, skids, or lifting. See 5. Coop Requirements below.

2) Is a permit required? Staff is anticipating (proposing?) that permits be issued through the building department. This is a major departure from the system in place in the City of Sarasota, which does not require a permit. At the January workshop, the direction to staff was to use the City of Sarasota ordinance as a model, so one has to ask where the permitting requirement originated? Adding a permitting requirement increases costs for both residents and the City. The City should consider allowing chickens and coops without the need for permits or licenses. See 9. Permit Requirements, below.

3) What about those neighbors that do not want to live next to chickens? This is an important question. It presumes that neighbors are entitled to some sort of veto power over their neighbor's activities. But this is America, where a man's (or woman's) home is his or her castle and we allow people to do what they want in pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unless we choose to live in a community with strict HOA covenants, neighbors do NOT have the right to say what pets their neighbors have. The exceptions occur when one neighbor creates a nuisance. That should result in an enforcement action, whether the nuisance is barking or dangerous dogs, squawking parrots, or a crowing rooster.

4) What about property values? No information or testimony has been brought forward at any level that backyard hens decrease property values. In fact, a recent article documents the fact that chicken coops are being included in some real estate ads as amenities. One prominent Sarasota realtor said "If your neighbor has three lawn ornaments or paints their house pink, that will have more effect on the ability to sell your house than if they have backyard chickens." See "D" at the bottom, from a recent Environmental Law Review article.

5) What will be the impact on wells? The photo below shows chicken droppings in relation to US quarters. The idea that this amount of waste could affect potable water wells in neighborhoods with septic tanks is chilling because this is a trivial amount compared with the what enters the surficial aquifer via the septic systems, which treat far more human waste. We presume and hope potable wells in North Port are accessing a deeper aquifer that is isolated from septic tank effluent (as well as dog waste -- one Springer Spaniel produces as much waste as six chickens!)

Yellow triangle arrows point to chicken droppings - insignificant compared with dogs, which are allowed.

6) What is the cost to City to regulate? To properly answer this question data would need to be produced documenting the current level of effort (and cost) the City now expends reacting to chicken complaints. Code enforcement is already responding to roosters and other complaints. So the real question should be: Will chicken complaints increase, decrease, or stay the same after backyard hens are legalized? See 9. Permit Requirements below.

The experience in many communities is a decrease or no increase in complaints. CLUCK believes this results from two phenomena: 1) some current violations would be compliant if hens were allowed and, 2) people will attempt to come into compliance to ensure they will be able to keep their chickens. Right now there is no greater penalty for having a rooster or two dozen birds --establishing reasonable limits creates an incentive for people to abide by the law -- even if they are now lawbreakers. 

CLUCK believes that enforcement actions should be directed at real problems: animal abuse, animal hoarding, and cockfighting (and there is no cockfighting without loud roosters). 

Two years into allowing chickens in the City of Sarasota, all six candidates at a forum were asked if they were comfortable with the chicken ordinance. All six said they were. 

7) How many citizens really want this? CLUCK does not know how many citizens would be interested in having backyard chickens, but that really shouldn't be a determining factor. If it is reasonable, it should be allowed, even if only one family wants chickens. And if it is unreasonable it should be denied, even if a majority of citizens want chickens. Consider this: if the number is very small, then by definition it will have almost no effect on the community. 

8) Is there a minimum lot size? No, and neither is there in the City of Sarasota. Keep in mind 75% of the largest cities in the US allow hens, which argues that small lots need not be problematic. See Section 3 below.

5. Coop Requirements

Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained. There is a broad range in these regulations, and no two ordinances are alike . Some simply decree that it is unlawful for chickens to run at large, and thus implicitly mandate that the coop be constructed in a secure enough way so that chickens can’t easily escape . Some appear to look out for animal welfare by decreeing that chickens should be provided adequate food, water, and shelter in sanitary conditions . And, some appear to try to proactively head off any potential problems by regulating the dimensions of the coop, how it must be built, and exactly how often it must be cleaned. (more information follows in the original document).

9. Permits (discussion of model ordinance proposed by the author)

The model ordinance, following the ordinances of many other cities, does not require a permit, as long as the ordi- nance is followed . Because chickens are novel to many communities, city officials naturally want to closely monitor how well owners are maintaining their flocks . But, regulating through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating a city official to overseeing it, and maintaining the records that such a process will require appears to be an inefficient use of city resources . It is also expensive for owners to pay permitting fees on an annual basis and is a barrier to entry to keeping chickens to those with low or modest incomes . The fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, effectively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens .

The permitting process, moreover, does not necessarily give the city more control . If the city prohibits hens unless its ordinance is followed, it can enforce its laws in the same way that it enforces its laws against errant dog, cat, or bird owners . Requiring a permit, thus, appears to provide an unnecessary, inefficient, and expensive layer to the process of legalizing hens .

The model ordinance does require a permit, however, if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster.

D. Property Values

Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- ens will reduce surrounding property values .108 Several studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within the city actually increase property values .109 Community gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as 9.4% when the garden is first implemented .110 The property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood .111 The poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values .112 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden .113

Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apartment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets .114 Thus, accommodating pets has been shown to raise property values .

As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them .115

3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted (discussion of model ordinance proposed by the author)

The majority of cities do not require a specific lot size before a person can keep chickens. Lot size restrictions, moreover, often do little more than prohibit the majority of city residents from keeping hens. The concern that cities are mainly addressing through lot size, that of making sure that chickens are not located too close to neighbors, can better be addressed through setbacks .

For this reason, the model ordinance does not restrict through lot size . If a city has a wide variety of lot sizes, however, a city may wish to allow more hens for larger lot sizes . The city, for instance, can legislate a maximum number of chickens for lot sizes of 1⁄2 acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes. 

North Port PZAB Votes on Chicken Ordinance

After tackling an Urban Service Boundary for the City, on Thursday morning April 4th members of the North Port Planning and Zoning Advisory Board (PZAB) took up a proposed backyard chicken ordinance that the City Commission had (at a January 14th workshop) directed staff to draft based on the City of Sarasota ordinance.

Planning Staff member Barbara McKeathon presented the draft ordinance to the PZAB noting that the only significant change from the City of Sarasota's ordinance was an increase in the allowable number of hens from four to six, a change requested by the Board at the workshop. She clarified that, despite was was printed, rules adopted in CDDs and HOAs would take precedence over any City ordinance, meaning that those neighborhoods with mandatory homeowner associations could set their own rules about chickens and those would take precedence over any City ordinance allowing hens.

The PZAB members then raised a number of concerns:

• What would the expense be in having the building department come out two or three times to inspect the coop?

• What about odors, noise, roosters, cost to the City, and the possibility of them "free-ranging"?

• Would a greater setback distance be better?

• Could chicken droppings somehow pollute the wells of residents on wells and septic tanks?

• Would there have to be a house on a lot to qualify? (Yes)

Several of the Board members had prior experience with chickens. One was of the opinion that six hens would lay far too many eggs for one family. But several members seemed unfamiliar with backyard hens - one suspected a rooster might be needed for eggs to be laid.

The question about inspections was prompted by a question about the need for permits. Ms. McKeathon opined that a permit would be required (and hence the need for inspections).

A North Port mom with two sons in attendance spoke, affirming that the birds would primarily be pets. She challenged the argument that chicken poop would be likely to affect wells (graciously declining to point out that the septic tanks would be far more of an issue) and cautioned against expanding the setbacks to the point that the coops would be impossible to site on an average North Port lot.

Then CLUCK spokesperson Jono Miller spoke saying he was not going to tell North Port what to do, but was there to offer information about the City of Sarasota's experience after two years. He pointed out that while North Port had more citizens than the City of Sarasota, Sarasota was far denser and that led to increased potential for neighbor complaints. He stated that in 2009 and 2010, the years before the ordinance passed, there had been 2,988 code complaints, but that only seven had related to chickens. He said Sarasota lacked a computerized database for complaints so it was not easy to get current numbers, but that his understanding was that complaints had not increased. He said some cities report a drop in complaints after legalizing backyard hens and hypothesized that was both because some operations already complied with the law and other citizens would want to "color inside the lines" and comply with rules to insure they could keep their birds. He noted that all six City Commission candidates at a recent forum said they were comfortable with the chicken situation. He pointed out that the City of Sarasota was worried about demands on staff and estimated a permit would cost $100, so Sarasota dropped the requirement for a permit - a major difference from what the PZAB was considering. He then offered to answer questions, but there were none.

The public hearing was closed and the PZAB went back to discussing the proposal. Kenneth Maturo made it very clear he could not support the ordinance. Former City Commissioner Tower returned to his concerns about inspections and the cost of enforcement. He suggested than owning two lots might be a prerequisite for keeping chickens.

Then James Glass, the PZAB Chairman who appeared to have the most experience with chickens, attempted to temper some of the debate. He emphasized the fact that these birds would primarily be pets and would not actually lay 42 eggs a week as had been implied. He opined that based on the raccoon droppings he had been seeing the City might want to ban raccoons. He seemed to agree that the movable coop provision would solve a number of problems.

When all was said and done there seemed to be three substantive arguments:

1) That permitting, inspections, and enforcement might place an unwelcome burden on staff resources, and

2) That the rights of those wanting chickens had to be weighed against neighbors that did not want to see chickens in their neighbor's yards, and

3) That so few citizens were showing up to speak that it did not make sense to consider a change.

Then Mr. Tower moved and Mr. Maturo seconded a motion that the PZAB NOT recommend the ordinance to the City Commission, which passed 4 to 3. The Ordinance now goes back to the City Comission at 6:00 pm Monday, April 22nd.

Based on the minimal citizen turnout, the confusion about permitting, the lack of definitive data from the City of Sarasota, and the modest level of understanding of some PZAB members, this seemed like a good outcome -- one comparable to the 3-2 vote against chickens that emerged from the City of Sarasota Planning Board before the City Commission approved it.

For more on the big picture in North Port, go to: SPOTLIGHT SHIFTS TO NORTH PORT CHICKEN ORDINANCE.

North Port Planning & Zoning Advisory Board Agenda Item

This meeting will be held April 4th at 9:00 am.

CITY OF NORTH PORT PLANNING AND ZONING ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING FOR:  TXT-13-024
Public Hearing			X		Meeting of:			March 21, 2013
Quasi Judicial					Department:			Neighborhood Development Services
Consent					Prepared by:			Jenny Gellermann, Planner Barbara McKeathon, Planner
Workshop					Date Prepared:			February 22, 2013
Other:					Exhibits:			1.     Ordinance 2013-03 2.     Staff Report
AGENDA SUBJECT: Ordinance 2013-03, Petition No. TXT-13-024, Amending Chapter 53, Section 53-121 of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) concerning “allowing chickens in Residential zoning district”. DC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board (PZAB) recommend that the City Commission consider ORDINANCE 2013-03, TXT-13-024, to amend Chapter 53, Section 53-121,“Permitted principal uses and structures” in Residential Single Family district of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC).
SUMMARY:         The City Commission held a workshop on January 14, 2013 to discuss the raising of chickens within the limits of the City of North Port.  Staff was directed to provide an ordinance that mirrors the regulations of the City of Sarasota regarding the raising of chickens in Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning district.  Based on the Commission direction, Staff is providing changes to the ULDC to allow chickens in Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning district as follows: 1)     No more than six (6) chickens allowed per property, with roosters prohibited; 2)     No slaughtering of chickens is allowed; 3)     Provide a moveable covered enclosure (hen house/coup) for chickens; 4)     Provide no less than four (4) square feet per chicken in the hen house/coup; 5)     No hen house/coup shall be located in the front yard, no closer than 10 feet to any adjacent property line, nor within 25 feet of any adjacent residential structure.  Odors or chicken substances shall not be detectable at the property boundaries; 6)     All hen house/coup shall be constructed and maintained as to prevent rodents and other pest to be harbored underneath, within or within the walls of the enclosure.  All enclosure shall be kept in neat conditions; 7)     All feed for chickens shall be kept in secure containers and protected to prevent rodents from getting them; 8)     The sale of eggs or any other chicken generated product is prohibited in the City of North Port; 9)     No dog or cat that kills a chicken shall be considered a dangerous or aggressive animal; 10)  The proposed section only pertains to the allowing chickens in Residential Single Family district; 11)  The proposed section does apply to CDDs, HOAs, Communities or Neighborhoods which have legally recorded Declarations, Covenants and Restrictions, unless recorded documents allows chickens. The proposed changes are provided in detail in “Exhibit A” of Ordinance 2013-03.  The City Attorney reviewed the ordinance for form and correctness.  The City of Sarasota adopted code is attached for reference, Ordinance No. 11-4955 (Exhibit B).
APPROVED BY:									Initial		Date
					Department Director:				_______	\	_________
					Project Planner:				_______	\	_________