City Hens in Roeland Park and the North East Animal Control Commission

At the last Roeland Park City Council meeting discussion regarding backyard hens and the permit, comments were made about how much it would cost to enforce codes(suggested per incident fee for chicken calls**) and that animal control would pass calls on to our Police Dept (because NEACC only handles wild or domestic animal calls)---wait a minute--aren't chickens members of one of those two categories?

The link leads you to the code that creates the commission and outlines its budget procedure, how the cities pay them (RP share is $54,000) and its role in animal control for the communities it serves. Take a read and be informed about this particular item that was brought up for discussion at the last meeting. 

There are several steps:

Go to: http://www.roelandpark.net/codes/CODES.html

then to the left click on the first item "New Ordinances Adopted..." 

then click on # 802...you are at the code.

**We have posted the comments from three other cities citing very little if any impact on their Animal Control Departments in a previous post.

In the Issue of Extra Animal Code Enforcement Expense

Code Enforcement:  In my research I found over and over again commentary by pleasantly surprised public officials who reported little or no increase in animal nuisance call.  Three communities: Longmont, CO;  Montgomery, OH, and Columbia, MO, all have stated publicly that they have few if any complaints. 

Regarding the extra cost of animal control,  

Were they (the NEAC) presented with the fact that virtually no code violations have been a problem in cities across the nation who have good hen / animal keeping ordinances? 

Relevant information: Here are 3 examples of surprised government officials who have see virtually no animal control expense increase in their communities.

Code Enforcement and Burdens on Government

According to the Montgomery Police, Montgomery hasn’t received a chicken‐related
complaint since the 70s, when a family in the Shadowhill neighborhood kept a
rooster and the city received noise‐related complaints. We know that there are at
least two families in Montgomery keeping chickens currently; the police have
received no complaints.

Currently both Madeira and Wyoming allow chickens (under similar ordinances to Montgomery’s current ordinance), do have households raising chickens, and have no complaints related to chickens. There is no reason to believe that chickens in Montgomery will generate any more complaints than those in Madeira and Wyoming.

CFM’s Proposed Ordinance forbids roosters and doesn’t require inspections or

permits. Such an ordinance will generate no significant burden on government. In the absence of complaints – which experience both here in Montgomery and in similar communities such as Wyoming and Madeira has shown is the likeliest outcome – will generate NO burden on government.

The chickens are popular among the family’s neighbors. When one recently
expressed an interest in raising chickens herself, Cati O’Keefe decided she’d better
check into the legalities before giving any advice. It costs quite a bit in both money
and time to get started, and while she’d been willing to risk it herself based on her
own perusal of online ordinances, she didn’t want to take that risk for anyone else.

Her inquiry sparked this new ordinance. The police, far from having received any
complaints, were unaware there were chickens being kept in Montgomery. CFM has
since learned of another household in a neighborhood not far from City Hall keeping
chickens. They prefer to remain under the radar, though, as they and their
neighbors are very attached to their hens. Montgomery, OH Ordinance proposal 

Outlaw chickens  http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/7759/2010/04/16/city-chicks-whats-happened-since-the-backyard-birds-became-legal/

In the first two months since the chicken ordinance passed, there were only two substantiated complaints about violations, according to the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Gerry Worley, an environmental health manager who is in charge of animal control for the city, said one involved the Hong Kong Market. The business had ducks — which are illegal — mixed in with chickens, but the fowl were all gone when it came time for the two-week follow-up inspection.

The other complaint was against a West Ash resident who, his neighbors said, allowed his chickens to fly the coop and trespass into their yard. His court date was set for March 19, but the city prosecutor declined to prosecute the case.

Two complaints in two months isn’t too bad, said Worley, who is also working on a plan to address what to do with “unwanted” chickens. 

http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-news/ci_16539044

LONGMONT -- All that talk that backyard chickens would produce more work for this city's code-enforcement and animal-control officers turns out to be nothing more than clucking.

A report presented by the Longmont city staff to the City Council last week said that since February 2009, when backyard chickens were first allowed on a trial basis, the effect on the workload of code-enforcement and animal-control officers has been nil.

"The biggest concern was the impact on animal-control officers, but almost two years later, they're saying it really hasn't been a problem for them," said Longmont City Planner Ben Ortiz.

After hearing the report and strong support from residents Tuesday night, the council voted 4-3 in favor of extending the city's chicken ordinance and removing the limit on the number of permits that can be issued. Mayor Bryan Baum and council members Gabe Santos and Alex Sammoury dissented.
Read more: Despite earlier brooding, backyard chickens cause few problems in Longmont - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-news/ci_16539044#ixzz17NAwh0OR
DailyCamera.com

5-3 Yes to Hen Keeping in Roeland Park

December 6, 2010 Council Result

We verified the action taken at Monday night's Council Meeting with the City Staff:

The council approved allowing Residents to keep chickens in Roeland Park; motion carried, 5-3.

The council tabled the motion to allow staff to work with the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to be approved by the council. Motion carried, 8-0.

 The Administrative Committee will discuss the proposed draft special permit on December 14th at 6 pm

This begins the next phase, the actual drafting of the special permit from the draft brought to the Council Meeting.  We are so grateful to the City Leaders who have given us this opportunity.

The next step is addressing the issues that have been at the crux of the opposition.  Some valid concerns have been brought forth and we will do our best to provide case studies and other research based solutions to those concerns.

Look for those issues to be posted here...and thank all of you for your support!

City Hens in Roeland Park: Draft of Ordinance from Council Packet

Please review and know that you can still weigh in by submitting a Public Comment Form prior to the meeting on Monday evening, December 6, 7 PM and you can still contact your Ward Representatives.

This is the draft included in the City Council Packet for the meeting on December 6, 2010.  link to Dec Council Meeting Packet

KEEPING RESIDENTIAL HENS

SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIRED

(a) Any person who keeps hens in the City of Roeland Park shall obtain a Special Permit from the

City prior to acquiring hens. No permit shall be issued to a person, by the City, and no

hens shall be allowed to be kept unless the owners of all properties within a 50’ radius of

the applicant’s property are notified by certified mail of the date and time of the council

meeting as well as providing contact information of the council or alternate city contact.

(b) Application shall be made to the City Clerk with a (annual) fee of $85.00 if keeping 3 or less

hens; $115 if keeping 4 to 6 hens. Special permits expire and become invalid 1 year after

the date of issuance. A person who wishes to continue keeping hens shall have obtained a

new permit on or before the expiration date of the previous permit.

(c) A person who keeps or houses hens on their property shall comply with all of the following

requirements:

(1) Have been issued the special permit required in this section.

(2) Keep no more than (6) hens.

(3) The principle use of the person’s property must be zoned as defined in Chapter 16 as

single-family use dwelling or two-family dwelling.

(4) The property must be occupied by the person requesting the permit.

(5) No person shall keep any rooster.

(6) No person shall publicly slaughter any hen.

(7) The hens shall be provided with the following minimum enclosure requirements:

a. Hens must be kept in a clean, safe and healthy environment; must be kept in the

covered enclosure at all times; and it shall be Rodent and predator resistant.

b. Enclosure must be inspected by the Building Inspector

i. Enclosure must be built with a minimum of 12 sq ft per hen, not to

exceed 85 sq ft total. (2 sq ft for inside area per hen and 10 sq ft for an

outside run per hen).

ii. Coop is to be completely enclosed (meaning there is a top and sides)

iii. It shall be designed in a fashion to be easily maintained.

iv. It shall be designed with durable materials that will hold up to weather

and environment

v. Used materials and equipment must be approved by the Building

Inspector as referenced in the adopted International Resident Code

(

(8) A person shall not keep hens in any location on the property other than in the backyard.

See definition of backyard in Chapter 16.

(9) Hen enclosure shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any property line of an

adjacent property.

(10) Hen enclosure shall not be located closer than 40 feet to any residential structure on an

adjacent property.

(11) All feed and other items associated with the keeping of hens shall be protected from or

to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact

with them.

(12) Lack of care, illness issues and abuse complaints will be handled through animal control

(?) and protection ordinances.

(13) Chicken odors must not be “perceptible” at the property boundary.

(14) If the above requirements are not complied with, the City may revoke any special permit

granted under this section and /or initiate prosecution for a civil infraction violation.

(City Attorney to help with language)

(15) A person who had been issued a special permit shall submit it for examination upon

demand by any Police Officer or Code Enforcement Officer.

(16) Hens are not to be kept for monetary gain

(17) Veterinary banding of hens may be required

(18) Chicken waste is the responsibility of the owner; no more than three cubic feet of

chicken manure can accumulate. Composting of manure must following City Code

section 15-105; Composting

(19) Commercial chicken operations are prohibited.

(20) Dogs or cats that kill chickens will not be considered dangerous or aggressive animals for

this offense alone.2003 R104.9.1)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 6, 7 PM ROELAND PARK CITY HALL

PLEASE JOIN US TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT.  IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH AN ORDINANCE TO LEGALIZE CITY HENS IN ROELAND PARK.  IF YOU HAVE NOT SENT A LETTER TO YOUR WARD REPRESENTATIVES, PLEASE CONSIDER DOING SO.  THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE ON THE ROELAND PARK WEBSITE OR IN THE SIDE BAR OF THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!