THE FERNDALE, MI BACKYARD CHICKEN KEEPING ORDINANCE WAS SUCCESSFULLY UPDATED IN JANUARY 2012! We can now keep 3 hens, no roosters, and must have the housing 10ft away from neighboring residential structures.
Verbiage copied and located at www.ferndalechickens.com
2008 Correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto
ostmaster@muniweb
.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Feedback From The City Website
Feedback:
I was wondering what Ferndale's stance is on owning chickens, particularly in regards to the law recently passed in Ann Arbor. I checked through the code of ordinances, but I see nothing that outright bans chicken ownership.
___________________
From: Jaynmarie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:06 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Feedback From The City Website
The ordinance does not prohibit ownership - it just addresses the noise, containment, and sale of chickens:
Sec. 5-1. Keeping such as to create disturbing noises prohibited.
The keeping of any animal or fowl which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity is prohibited.
(Ord. No. 361, § 3, 3-22-54; Ord. No. 573, § V, 10-5-70)
Cross references: Noise generally, §§ 2-96--2-106.
Sec. 5-2. Livestock running at large prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any horse, mule, mare or colt, ox, steer, cow, calf, hog, shoat, pig, boar or sheep, or any other such animal, excluding cats and dogs, owned by them, including chickens or other domestic fowl, in their possession, or under their control to run at large or pasture the same, on any of the public streets, highways, public places or commons, within the corporate limits of the city.
(Ord. No. 1, § 1, 6-10-18; Ord. No. 3, § 1, 6-10-18)
Sec. 5-3. Sale of baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings, etc., prohibited; exceptions; seizure.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, or offer for sale, barter or give away baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings or other fowl as pets or novelties, whether or not dyed, colored or otherwise artificially treated. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the display or sale of natural chicks or ducklings in proper brooder facilities by hatcheries or stores engaged in the business of selling the same to be raised for commercial purposes. Nor shall this section be construed to prohibit the display or sale of rabbits in a licensed pet store.
(b) In the case of any violation of this section, it shall be the duty of any fully appointed police officer, or the dog warden, to seize such fowl or pets and provide the necessary care and attention, and such fowl or pets shall not be returned until all expenses for such care and attention shall have been paid.
(Ord. No. 468, §§ 1, 2, 6-18-62; Ord. No. 515, 4-17-67)
______________
from: Jaynmarie <[email protected]>
to [email protected]
cc "Scheer, Marsha" <[email protected]>
date Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM
subject RE: Feedback From The City Website
hide details 7/3/08
Laura –
CDS Director Scheer pointed out this additional reference in the Charter about fowl.
Sorry for not including this in my initial response:
Sec. 12-116. Keeping, housing fowl.
It shall be unlawful to keep, house or maintain fowl within a distance of 150 feet of any building or part of a building used by any person or persons for habitation other than that of the person (including members of his household) so keeping, housing or maintaining fowl. It shall also be unlawful to maintain pigeons, seagulls or other wild fowl so as to create an unsanitary condition or odor. Violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor and is declared a public nuisance subject to abatement as provided in section 12-112.
(Ord. No. 899, Pt. VII, 10-12-98)
Jaynmarie C. Hubanks
Assistant City Manager
Sept 2009 Correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailtoostmaster@muniweb
.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Comment/Feedback:
Is there a site or reference available that would allow me to calculate or determine the average residential lot/parcel size in the city of Ferndale?
Date & Time:
9/30/2009 12:05:16 PM
__________
From: Ahlgrim, Shirley Ann [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Mr. Singh – City’s website feedback form
Shirley
___________
from Singh, Jay <[email protected]>
to [email protected]
cc "Ahlgrim, Shirley Ann" <[email protected]>
date Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM
subject Average Lot Size
hide details 1:55 PM (16 minutes ago)
Laura Mikulski:
We did not have to calculate a city wide average lot size for any of our assessment routines. There is one resource that you could use to calculate or ascertain for yourself the average lot size from the plat map book available over the assessor’s counter. The other resource that could be used is through the @ccess oakland under Map Atlas by which you could look up the lot sizes in different areas of the city. But looking up the plat map would be easier. From my rough memory I would say the average lot size in Ferndale is 40 feet by 110 feet.
You could get a copy of the plat map pages – ledger size - $2/per page.
Thanks
Jay Singh
248 546 2372
Oct 2009 Correspondence:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Deb Olsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Laura,
I will forward this on to the rest of the FESC for consideration and let you know what they say.
Thanks!
Deb
From: Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, October 7, 2009 8:28:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
Hi Deb:
I found your contact info on the ferndale-mi.com page listed under the Environmental Impact Commission (I think the name may have changed at some point to Ferndale Environmental Sustainability Commission). I recently sent this email to Mayor Covey for consideration- it concerns the repeal or amendment of the ordinance that limits our ability to keep chickens.
Would you take a moment to read through my email and the corresponding links and please consider bringing it forward to Council?
Laura Mikulski
313.221.9330
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Subject: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
To: [email protected]
Mayor Covey:
I bought my home on Hazelhurst in September of 2006, choosing to live in Ferndale largely due to the quality of the community. As an avid organic gardener and compost tea brewer, I've thrilled to see my neighbors revive or create backyard gardens these past few years. Their efforts are indicative of a growing movement to eat locally, not only to save money, but to reconnect to our food sources, ensuring the nutritional quality of the produce we consume as well as decreasing the resources needed to get it to our table. Our community increasingly shows an appreciation for a naturally healthy lifestyle coupled with a strong DIY spirit- the perfect combination to embrace an ordinance making backyard urban chicken keeping accessible.
Back in June of 2008 I started looking into our city ordinances concerning the keeping and maintenance of chickens. Through research, I came to the conclusion that while Ferndale doesn't prohibit ownership, it has effectively denied the opportunity to most of our residents by way of an unreasonable poultry housing distance requirement. I've posted the section below:
Sec. 12-116. Keeping, housing fowl.
It shall be unlawful to keep, house or maintain fowl within a distance of 150 feet of any building or part of a building used by any person or persons for habitation other than that of the person (including members of his household) so keeping, housing or maintaining fowl. It shall also be unlawful to maintain pigeons, seagulls or other wild fowl so as to create an unsanitary condition or odor. Violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor and is declared a public nuisance subject to abatement as provided in section 12-112.
(Ord. No. 899, Pt. VII, 10-12-98)
To quote an email response from Jay Singh, Ferndale City Assessor on 9/30/2009:
"From my rough memory I would say the average lot size in Ferndale is 40 feet by 110 feet." (not yet independently verfied by plat map averages)
If our ordinance disallows the keep, housing, or maintenance of fowl within 150 feet of an occupied residential dwelling, then Ferndale may as well reword the ordinance to expressly ban domestic fowl.
Instead, I'd like to see Ferndale repeal Ordinance 899 and take a more progressive approach, much like Ann Arbor did in 2008 and Ypsilanti did earlier this year. See below:
Ypsilanti Ordinance No. 1100 (adopted 7/21/2009)
Allows:
-keeping of up to 4 hens
-coop/enclosures must be at least 20 feet from any residential structure not owned by the permitee unless written permission is granted from the owner of the affected residential structure.
Disallows:
-any keeping of roosters
-slaughter of hens
-violation of noise ordinances
-keeping chickens in any other area besides the backyard
Reference:
http://city-ypsilanti.org/services/administration_services/building_department/Forms/chickens.pdf
Ann Arbor Ordinance No. 08-19 Chapter 107 Animals (adopted 6/2/2008)
Allows:
-up to 4 hens
-coop/enclosures must be at least 40 feet from any residential structure not owned by the permitee unless written permission is granted from the owner of the affected residential structure.
Disallows:
-any keeping of roosters
-slaughter of hens
-violation of noise ordinances
-keeping chickens in any other area besides the backyard
Reference:
http://www.a2gov.org/government/city_administration/City_Clerk/Documents/Backyard Chickens Permit 0708.pdf
These are just two examples of local communities enabling their citizens to make a move toward a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle. Across the country, urban chicken farming is encouraged in cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Austin, Portland and Seattle. These communities are allowed to enjoy the nutritional benefits fresh, non-commercial eggs confer, the economic advantages of decreasing their bottom line grocery expense, as well the invaluable appreciation of food sources in an increasingly industrialized society. The repeal of the prohibitively restrictive portion of Ord. 899 would demonstrate a great commitment to the green movement and health & welfare of Ferndale citizenry, further distinguishing our city as a destination for innovative and ecologically minded individuals.
Please take a moment to peruse the sites I've listed below, and let me know if you'll consider bringing this forward to council.
Please read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/dining/19yard.html
http://www.a2citychickens.com/
https://www.backyardchickens.com/
http://www.madcitychickens.com/faq.html
from Deb Olsen <[email protected]>
reply-to Deb Olsen <[email protected]>
to Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
date Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM
subject Re: Fwd: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
mailed-by yahoo.com
signed-by yahoo.com
hide details 10:28 AM (13 minutes ago)
Hi Laura,
After much debate amongst our members of the Ferndale Environmental Sustainability Commission, it has been decided that this proposal is outside the confines of our agenda as a Commission. However, I have let the Mayor know that he can take this up with City Council, if he so chooses. My best advice is to bring this directly to City Council. You may have some views expressed by FESC members as individuals, but this won't be something we can bring to Council for you.
Thank you.
Warmest Regards,
Deb Olsen
Secretary
FESC
Verbiage copied and located at www.ferndalechickens.com
2008 Correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto
ostmaster@muniweb.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Feedback From The City Website
Feedback:
I was wondering what Ferndale's stance is on owning chickens, particularly in regards to the law recently passed in Ann Arbor. I checked through the code of ordinances, but I see nothing that outright bans chicken ownership.
___________________
From: Jaynmarie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:06 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Feedback From The City Website
The ordinance does not prohibit ownership - it just addresses the noise, containment, and sale of chickens:
Sec. 5-1. Keeping such as to create disturbing noises prohibited.
The keeping of any animal or fowl which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity is prohibited.
(Ord. No. 361, § 3, 3-22-54; Ord. No. 573, § V, 10-5-70)
Cross references: Noise generally, §§ 2-96--2-106.
Sec. 5-2. Livestock running at large prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any horse, mule, mare or colt, ox, steer, cow, calf, hog, shoat, pig, boar or sheep, or any other such animal, excluding cats and dogs, owned by them, including chickens or other domestic fowl, in their possession, or under their control to run at large or pasture the same, on any of the public streets, highways, public places or commons, within the corporate limits of the city.
(Ord. No. 1, § 1, 6-10-18; Ord. No. 3, § 1, 6-10-18)
Sec. 5-3. Sale of baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings, etc., prohibited; exceptions; seizure.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, or offer for sale, barter or give away baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings or other fowl as pets or novelties, whether or not dyed, colored or otherwise artificially treated. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the display or sale of natural chicks or ducklings in proper brooder facilities by hatcheries or stores engaged in the business of selling the same to be raised for commercial purposes. Nor shall this section be construed to prohibit the display or sale of rabbits in a licensed pet store.
(b) In the case of any violation of this section, it shall be the duty of any fully appointed police officer, or the dog warden, to seize such fowl or pets and provide the necessary care and attention, and such fowl or pets shall not be returned until all expenses for such care and attention shall have been paid.
(Ord. No. 468, §§ 1, 2, 6-18-62; Ord. No. 515, 4-17-67)
______________
from: Jaynmarie <[email protected]>
to [email protected]
cc "Scheer, Marsha" <[email protected]>
date Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM
subject RE: Feedback From The City Website
hide details 7/3/08
Laura –
CDS Director Scheer pointed out this additional reference in the Charter about fowl.
Sorry for not including this in my initial response:
Sec. 12-116. Keeping, housing fowl.
It shall be unlawful to keep, house or maintain fowl within a distance of 150 feet of any building or part of a building used by any person or persons for habitation other than that of the person (including members of his household) so keeping, housing or maintaining fowl. It shall also be unlawful to maintain pigeons, seagulls or other wild fowl so as to create an unsanitary condition or odor. Violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor and is declared a public nuisance subject to abatement as provided in section 12-112.
(Ord. No. 899, Pt. VII, 10-12-98)
Jaynmarie C. Hubanks
Assistant City Manager
Sept 2009 Correspondence:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto
ostmaster@muniweb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Comment/Feedback:
Is there a site or reference available that would allow me to calculate or determine the average residential lot/parcel size in the city of Ferndale?
Date & Time:
9/30/2009 12:05:16 PM
__________
From: Ahlgrim, Shirley Ann [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Your Message From www.ferndale-mi.com
Mr. Singh – City’s website feedback form
Shirley
___________
from Singh, Jay <[email protected]>
to [email protected]
cc "Ahlgrim, Shirley Ann" <[email protected]>
date Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM
subject Average Lot Size
hide details 1:55 PM (16 minutes ago)
Laura Mikulski:
We did not have to calculate a city wide average lot size for any of our assessment routines. There is one resource that you could use to calculate or ascertain for yourself the average lot size from the plat map book available over the assessor’s counter. The other resource that could be used is through the @ccess oakland under Map Atlas by which you could look up the lot sizes in different areas of the city. But looking up the plat map would be easier. From my rough memory I would say the average lot size in Ferndale is 40 feet by 110 feet.
You could get a copy of the plat map pages – ledger size - $2/per page.
Thanks
Jay Singh
248 546 2372
Oct 2009 Correspondence:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Deb Olsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Laura,
I will forward this on to the rest of the FESC for consideration and let you know what they say.
Thanks!
Deb
From: Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, October 7, 2009 8:28:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
Hi Deb:
I found your contact info on the ferndale-mi.com page listed under the Environmental Impact Commission (I think the name may have changed at some point to Ferndale Environmental Sustainability Commission). I recently sent this email to Mayor Covey for consideration- it concerns the repeal or amendment of the ordinance that limits our ability to keep chickens.
Would you take a moment to read through my email and the corresponding links and please consider bringing it forward to Council?
Laura Mikulski
313.221.9330
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Subject: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
To: [email protected]
Mayor Covey:
I bought my home on Hazelhurst in September of 2006, choosing to live in Ferndale largely due to the quality of the community. As an avid organic gardener and compost tea brewer, I've thrilled to see my neighbors revive or create backyard gardens these past few years. Their efforts are indicative of a growing movement to eat locally, not only to save money, but to reconnect to our food sources, ensuring the nutritional quality of the produce we consume as well as decreasing the resources needed to get it to our table. Our community increasingly shows an appreciation for a naturally healthy lifestyle coupled with a strong DIY spirit- the perfect combination to embrace an ordinance making backyard urban chicken keeping accessible.
Back in June of 2008 I started looking into our city ordinances concerning the keeping and maintenance of chickens. Through research, I came to the conclusion that while Ferndale doesn't prohibit ownership, it has effectively denied the opportunity to most of our residents by way of an unreasonable poultry housing distance requirement. I've posted the section below:
Sec. 12-116. Keeping, housing fowl.
It shall be unlawful to keep, house or maintain fowl within a distance of 150 feet of any building or part of a building used by any person or persons for habitation other than that of the person (including members of his household) so keeping, housing or maintaining fowl. It shall also be unlawful to maintain pigeons, seagulls or other wild fowl so as to create an unsanitary condition or odor. Violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor and is declared a public nuisance subject to abatement as provided in section 12-112.
(Ord. No. 899, Pt. VII, 10-12-98)
To quote an email response from Jay Singh, Ferndale City Assessor on 9/30/2009:
"From my rough memory I would say the average lot size in Ferndale is 40 feet by 110 feet." (not yet independently verfied by plat map averages)
If our ordinance disallows the keep, housing, or maintenance of fowl within 150 feet of an occupied residential dwelling, then Ferndale may as well reword the ordinance to expressly ban domestic fowl.
Instead, I'd like to see Ferndale repeal Ordinance 899 and take a more progressive approach, much like Ann Arbor did in 2008 and Ypsilanti did earlier this year. See below:
Ypsilanti Ordinance No. 1100 (adopted 7/21/2009)
Allows:
-keeping of up to 4 hens
-coop/enclosures must be at least 20 feet from any residential structure not owned by the permitee unless written permission is granted from the owner of the affected residential structure.
Disallows:
-any keeping of roosters
-slaughter of hens
-violation of noise ordinances
-keeping chickens in any other area besides the backyard
Reference:
http://city-ypsilanti.org/services/administration_services/building_department/Forms/chickens.pdf
Ann Arbor Ordinance No. 08-19 Chapter 107 Animals (adopted 6/2/2008)
Allows:
-up to 4 hens
-coop/enclosures must be at least 40 feet from any residential structure not owned by the permitee unless written permission is granted from the owner of the affected residential structure.
Disallows:
-any keeping of roosters
-slaughter of hens
-violation of noise ordinances
-keeping chickens in any other area besides the backyard
Reference:
http://www.a2gov.org/government/city_administration/City_Clerk/Documents/Backyard Chickens Permit 0708.pdf
These are just two examples of local communities enabling their citizens to make a move toward a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle. Across the country, urban chicken farming is encouraged in cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Austin, Portland and Seattle. These communities are allowed to enjoy the nutritional benefits fresh, non-commercial eggs confer, the economic advantages of decreasing their bottom line grocery expense, as well the invaluable appreciation of food sources in an increasingly industrialized society. The repeal of the prohibitively restrictive portion of Ord. 899 would demonstrate a great commitment to the green movement and health & welfare of Ferndale citizenry, further distinguishing our city as a destination for innovative and ecologically minded individuals.
Please take a moment to peruse the sites I've listed below, and let me know if you'll consider bringing this forward to council.
Please read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/dining/19yard.html
http://www.a2citychickens.com/
https://www.backyardchickens.com/
http://www.madcitychickens.com/faq.html
from Deb Olsen <[email protected]>
reply-to Deb Olsen <[email protected]>
to Laura Mikulski <[email protected]>
date Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM
subject Re: Fwd: Proposal to Repeal/Amend Ordinance No. 899, Pt. VII
mailed-by yahoo.com
signed-by yahoo.com
hide details 10:28 AM (13 minutes ago)
Hi Laura,
After much debate amongst our members of the Ferndale Environmental Sustainability Commission, it has been decided that this proposal is outside the confines of our agenda as a Commission. However, I have let the Mayor know that he can take this up with City Council, if he so chooses. My best advice is to bring this directly to City Council. You may have some views expressed by FESC members as individuals, but this won't be something we can bring to Council for you.
Thank you.
Warmest Regards,
Deb Olsen
Secretary
FESC
