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.

Manatee County Staff to Draft Chicken Ordinance

On Tuesday March 26th the Manatee County Commission took one small step towards allowing backyard hens by directing staff to draft an ordinance allowing backyard hens. The vote was 4 to 3 with Commissioners Chappie, Whitmore, Bustle, and Gallen voting in favor and DiSabatino, Benac, and Baugh voting against.

Commissioners Benac, chappie, DiSabatino, Bustle, Baugh, Gallen, Whitmore

The discussion was delayed by more than an hour and the four or five opponents trotted out a mixture of legitimate concerns (that would be dealt with in any reasonable ordinance) and some "sky-is-falling" worst case fantasies such as assurances there would be "20 to 30" complaint calls a week if an ordinance were adopted.

Most of the arguments against were the predictable objections heard elsewhere: Salmonella, noise, odor and pollution, loose chickens, burdening code enforcement or animal control, and depressed real estate values. None of which have proved to be significant issues in the City of Sarasota.

The "farm animal" argument was also used, despite testimony that these chickens are not part of commercial agriculture operations, but rather pets, not unlike pot-bellied pigs. Applying the farm argument uniformly would require the county to ban dooryard citrus or a grow-box with tomatoes. We're talking about pets that people name and buy treats for, animals they are more likely to bury in a private ceremony than serve for dinner.

Another line of attack was the notion the "minority" of residents that favor chickens were somehow imposing their views on the "majority". This was an argument utilized by Commissioner DiSabatino apparently reflecting actions taken by some neighborhood associations and the Federation of Manatee County Community Associations Inc. It may be worth remembering that a core American value is protecting the rights of minorities. No neighbor should be expected to tolerate an obnoxious next door pet, whether it is a barking or biting dog, a bird-killing, sand-box fouling cat, or a squawking macaw on a lanai. But if a pet is not problematic, what right does one neighbor have to say their neighbor can't have one or more?

Organizations that adopt resolutions opposing chickens before an ordinance has even been drafted are reminiscent of small children that refuse to try a new food before they even know what it is. One would hope they would maintain a non-prejudiced view and base any objections on what was actually being proposed. Its worth noting that there are more provisions in the City of Sarasota's ordinance protecting neighbors than protecting chickens.

Perhaps more to the point, anyone living in a neighborhood with a mandatory HOA (Homeowner's Association) would have rules that would trump any county ordinance. So many of those objecting, who chose to live in such communities, have nothing to worry about.

In addition to chastising the "minority", Commissioner DiSabatino asked Code Enforcement Manager Joe Fenton to come forward and explain the legitimate challenges of enforcing code on fenced properties. CLUCK suspects that vast majority of urban chicken code complaints stem from roosters, and you don't need to be able to see through a fence to tell if there is a rooster present.

Some Commissioners expressed interest in minimum lot size, which could be a reasonable provision. But note should be made that chickens are allowed in Pinellas County (the state's densest county) as well as three quarters of the largest cities in the nation. 

Some of the best testimony came from attorney Earl Baden who showed pictures of himself as a kid with his hens and rebutted concerns about odor. His compassionate common sense experience stood in stark contrast to the alarmist testimony of the opponents. Holmes Beach Commissioner Jean Peelen offered refreshing positive testimony that included the fact that their ordinance is based on the City of Sarasota's and included the provision for movable coops. She said the only complaints from neighbors came from people who complained they wanted more eggs. Ronald Sprague of Palma Sola talked about his eight hens and how he had no neighbor complaints in two and a half years. He made the point, repeated by others, that these chickens are pets (just like dogs and cats).

Manatee County has a long way to go before backyard hens are approved with reasonable restrictions. But the ball is rolling, however slowly, and chicken advocates need to step up.


I

Backyard Chickens: Unfortunate Pawns in Neighborhood Chess

We had a CLUCK meeting tonight with a good turnout, but a sobering, somber assessment. As we went around the room listening to people's chicken stories far too many sounded something like: 

We had a few chickens illegally in the County, but they weren't bothering anyone and all the neighbors were okay with them until we had an issue with one neighbor and in suspiciously coincidental, apparent retaliation, county code enforcement showed up and we had to give up the chickens or pay a really steep fine, which was really hard on the kids, who still want to know where their pets are. 

CLUCK releases beta version guide to busted birds

Although more work is needed, Sarasota CLUCK has posted a guide for citizens whose birds have been busted -- turned in to code enforcement. Entitled My Chickens Busted by Code Enforcement, What do I do Now?  the online worksheet aims to help those whose hens have been targeted to think rationally about their situation and what can be done. The document advocates working with neighbors and code enforcement to address concerns and recognizes that in some situations the chickens will be leaving.

The experimental document should be viewed as a first step in coping with the threat of losing one's birds due to a complaint, and suggestions are welcomed.

CLUCK celebrates first anniversary of city chickens and plans county strategy

One year after final passage of the changes to Sarasota city ordinances to once again allow chickens, CLUCK supporters will gather commemorate our success and re-dedicate ourselves to a campaign to relax restrictions in the unincorporated county (and North Port). 

CCNA Takes No Position on Chicken Rules, Members offer Suggestions

The City of Sarasota’s powerful and respected neighborhood super-organization CCNA (Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations) declined to take a position on proposed backyard chicken code changes, but interested CCNA members offered several suggestions they felt would improve the initiative.

CCNA bylaws require the support of two thirds of the neighborhood representatives present to take an official action on public policy and after an initial motion failed, it became clear that the relatively large number of abstentions would doom any motion. 

Some representatives abstained because of close votes in their neighborhood, while others have not met recently enough to consider what is being proposed. One representative voting against commented that he felt obligated to vote against because of an earlier vote by his neighborhood board, which was apparently based on an earlier proposal and not what is currently being proposed by either City Staff or CLUCK.

City staff distributed their current wording, while CLUCK spokesperson Susan Hritz Scholz handed out a colorful graphic that revealed the effect citizen suggestions had on what CLUCK was proposing.

The motion that garnered the support of roughly a third present had four provisions:

First that CLUCK would aid in education and enforcement,

Secondly that additional enforcement provisions be included,

Third, that the measure be adopted with a three year trial period, and

Fourth that the measures CLUCK was seeking to add that had come from public comment be incorporated in the code changes.

1)   CLUCK has already spurred the offering of three educational "Chicken 101" type workshops, one of which (ironically) was taking place during the CCNA meeting. As for helping with enforcement CLUCK, has had a preliminary conversation with City Code Enforcement officials suggesting that City would be amenable to CLUCK playing an informal role in resolving some chicken-related code concerns. Mr. Litchet was clear that a formal volunteer code enforcement program (which is allowed by Florida law) would carry its own training costs and liability concerns, but that an informal role had possibilities. CLUCK has already independently negotiated an end to two chicken violations in the City.

2)   CLUCK supports adequate enforcement provisions and was reassured to hear Mr. Litchet state that the City can and will enforce the ordinance if passed by the City Commission. CLUCK believes part of the perception regarding lack of enforcement provisions results from the fact that the enforcement procedure and penalty schedule appear in a separate section of the City Code.  Chapter 2 Article V. Division 5 (Code Compliance System) Section 2-321 provides for a $50 a day fine for violations of Chapter 8.2 -8.4.

3)   CLUCK has been on record as opposing a trial period for a number of reasons. But discretion being the better part of valor, if the City Commission cannot agree on a code change without a trial period, a trial chicken period is preferable to a continued no-chicken period. This is similar to our stand on numbers -- we will argue for six, but find four a more workable number than zero.

4)   CLUCK has proposed adding a number of more restrictive provisions as a result of public testimony, particularly coming from members of CCNA, [These may be seen in bold type on the graphic.] It was gratifying to see CCNA members endorsing these provisions, which reflect the spirit of compromise and accommodation CLUCK has espoused from the outset.

CLUCK OPINION: New Year's Resolution -- Let's Have Fair Comparisons

CLUCK believes chickens will end up looking pretty good in any fair head-to-head comparison, and furthermore that when unfair comparisons are made, they should be pointed out. 


For that reason, CLUCK is critical of letters to the editor complaining about experiences in other parts of the country in vague terms that may or may not be faintly comparable to what is being proposed here in the City of Sarasota. In addition, CLUCK believes it would make more sense to compare chickens not to an abstract unrealistic standards, but other common urban pets.


Take for example a letter that appeared today in the Sarasota Herald Tribune Chickens require effort. Let's parse the letter:

I do not live within the Sarasota city limits, but I do know that people who have never raised chickens have no clue what the reality is. Fair statement, but a) people who have never raised anything have no clue what they are getting into (ask a first-time parent or puppy owner), and b) CLUCK has been emphasizing education, which has resulted in our County IFAS Extension Office offering "Chicken 101" classes to help people decide if chickens make sense for them.

I like chickens, but they require constant tending, as any farm animal does. If by constant, the author means daily, sure. But "minutes a day" comes closer. Feeding, watering and collecting eggs doesn't take much time, nor does closing the coop at night. They certainly take less care than any dog. But chickens do take resolute commitment. You have to close the coop. Closing the coop 95% of the time will probably lead to no chickens in less than three weeks. 
And for the record, characterizing chickens as "farm animals" ignores the contemporary reality of the more than 75 US cities that allow chickens. Whatever chickens were in the past in America, they are now primarily backyard pets and industrial production units (and the backyard pets are the fortunate ones). 

 In Massachusetts, I had neighbors who raised chickens, and I had two acres so my nearest neighbor was quite far away. The "neighbors raised chickens" Okay, is that six or less hens (what CLUCK is proposing) or a flock of 60 (or 600?) that included roosters? 
"quite far away" Another vague term -- 50', 100', 1,000'?  I grew up on two acres in New Jersey and could easily throw a baseball and hit our neighbor's house. The amount of land one has is not the relevant measure, but the actual distance to the chickens.

Even so, the birds were noisy at times, and attracted all kinds of wildlife into the surrounding yards. "At times" is that twice a day, twice a month, twice a year?" Dogs are noisy at times, and cats can be too. What people object to is animals that frequently or for continued duration . .  . makes sounds in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities.  


As for wildlife, yes, predators are attracted to chickens, that's why the hens are secured in their coop at night. But chickens don't create the "wildlife" -- the raccoons, opossums, rats, etc. are already in your neighborhood, eating garbage, cat food, bird seed, fallen fruit and whatever they can fish out of the goldfish pond as well as raiding the "compost pile". Chicken owners shouldn't be blamed for having pets that are attractive to the omnivores their neighbors have been inadvertently feeding for years.

When chickens got away, they were impossible to catch, and, on top of that, the smell of their waste would permeate the neighborhood. Absolutely true --chickens can be very hard to catch, but if neighbors were trying to catch chickens that is a symptom that those neighbors were not great chicken managers. Chickens can be lured to a certain extent, and they can be herded fairly well, but trying to catch them is tough. When my family kept chickens they came when called and were very interested in getting back into their coop at night. 


"The smell of their waste would permeate the neighborhood" -- this suggests we are talking about FAR more than a handful of chickens. Either this statement is exaggerated or we are talking about a lot of chickens.

Do your readers think an animal control officer is going to have the time and resources to go around a neighborhood chasing chickens and enforcing the regulations? It is not fair to the chickens, let alone the neighbors, so my advice is not to allow urban chickens. No, animal services probably won't have a lot of spare time to be chasing chickens. That may be due in part to the estimated 100,000 dogs and cats that don't have licenses in the County and the fact that if one takes the time to read section of the Sarasota City Code Chapter 8-4, City cats are apparently not allowed to leave the owners yard. Enforcing just those laws would require a major restructuring of both County Animal Services and City Code Enforcement. 


CLUCK is not opposed to dog and cat ownership or trying to make cats stay in one yard. But CLUCK challenges the assumptions that chickens should be judged by some abstract set of standards that dogs and cats frequently don't come close to meeting. 


People that live next to boarding kennels might have negative experiences with dogs, but that's not a reason to keep someone from having one as a pet. If people want to write about their terrible, unbearable experiences living next to a handful of hens, I imagine the City Commission would be interested, but horror stories from elsewhere with no relevant or comparable details are neither fair nor helpful. 

Remember to take the poll in the upper right to let CLUCK know where you live.

So here are are two suggested New Years resolutions:


1) If you are going to complain about bad chicken neighbors, let us know the facts about those neighbors -- how many chickens? roosters? etc..


2) If you want compare chickens to something, try other common pets instead of lofty unrealistic standards that few, if any, pets can meet.

CLUCK's Chicken-Related Code Enforcement Quiz Results • Please be seated to read this!

Maybe you saw the Quiz that ran for a number of days in the upper righthand corner of the blog.

Apparently not too many people saw it, or were otherwise engaged because only three people bothered to record an answer. And nobody really nailed it.


Two people thought it had to be a trick question, and one person thought it would be around four percent. 


Here's the scoop: According to the City, during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 the City received 2,988 (that's nearly 3,000!) complaints in which resulted in the following cases where code compliance orders were issued:

·         overgrowth- 1011 cases 29%

·         junk/trash/rubbish - 834 cases 28%

·         housing - 337 cases 11%

·         inoperable motor vehicles - 304 cases 10%

·         illegal exterior storage - 148 cases 5%

·         illegal signs - 109 cases 3.6%

·         no water - 97 cases 3%

·         boats/trailers front yard-52 cases 1.7%

·         commercial vehicles - 48 1.6%

·         trash cans - 39 1.3%

·         graffiti  - 19 .006%

They did respond to 7 chicken complaints (out of nearly 3,000) and only one of them actually resulted in generating a case.  

So 7 out of 2,988 equals 00.2342 percent of the complaints. If that number quadrupled (to 28 complaints) it will still only be 00.9368%. That's a little less than one percent of all code complaints.

Of course, this assumes the volume of other complaints will remain more or less constant. So if you checked trick question and want to feel okay about yourself, you can argue that it all depends on the number of other complaints. Point taken.

CLUCK's point is that, in the greater scheme of things, seven complaints in two years is not a lot and those were complaints regarding people who were violating the law. And only one case resulted.


We'd like to think that people who get chickens after the ordinance is passed will be at least as responsible.

For a humorous treatment (with real facts) of other communities code enforcement realities see David Grimes Offers to Help with Sarasota Chicken Enforcement.


See also Chickens Not A Problem After 2 Year Test in Colorado.


Don't forget to respond to the poll in the upper right letting us know where you live.