Help me change the law in Bellevue, OH

[erinleighdickey]

Bellevue, OH has anyone else started the process of changing the local law to allow backyard chickens?

Does anyone have any advice on where and how to start with this process?

 

[Iluveggers]

Find out when meetings are. Go and politely speak about why you want chickens. Definitely cite the rising cost and limited availability of eggs. If you know anyone else who is for it, bring letters from them or have them go to the meetings with you. Find out what the opposition says, and be ready to offer counterpoints and solutions for their worries (too loud, maybe compromise on no rooster. Too messy, maybe compromise on limit of hens and required distance from neighboring property).

Good luck!

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Check your surrounding cities/counties, see if they have poultry ordiances, what they say, what propblems have been reported in their local news, what touching personal interest stories. Check your history. Did you used to have a poultry ordinance? When did it change, and why? Does your comunity have a history of livestock ownership? Is there a "green" angle or a strong culture of self-suficiency you can play on?

Check for model poultry ordinances - legislators (and their staff) are lazy - they would much rather work from what someone else has done that reinvent the wheel. Come prepared.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/...lowing_backyard_poultry_by_darren_karcher_sku
https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/urbanlivestock/
https://www.chescoplanning.org/SharedContent/Tools/pdf/ChickensModel.pdf
https://media.timesfreepress.com/docs/2009/01/Ordinance_research_paper.pdf

and when all that fails, local elections tend to be very poorly participated in. Run for office.

 

[HausOfEggwards]

Okay so I'm looking at the Bellevue ordinances and this is what it says about fowl:

505.16 KEEPING OR HARBORING CERTAIN ANIMALS, FOWL OR REPTILES PROHIBITED.

(a) No person shall own, keep or harbor any animal, fowl or reptile within the Municipality, which would subject the owner, keeper or harborer thereof to absolute liability in the event such animal, fowl or reptile caused damage to another person or another person's property.



(b) Anything in this section notwithstanding, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) The keeping or harboring of any animal, fowl or reptile by a licensed veterinarian for the purpose of treating such animal, fowl or reptile for disease or injury.

(2) The owning, keeping or harboring of dogs shall in no case be a violation of this section.

(Ord. 28-73. Passed 5-29-73.)

(c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day the animal, fowl or reptile is kept or harbored in violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.

Soooo does that mean you can't keep animals that would cause damage to other people/property, but you can keep animals that wouldn't cause damage? Does anyone speak legalese???

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Okay so I'm looking at the Bellevue ordinances and this is what it says about fowl:

505.16 KEEPING OR HARBORING CERTAIN ANIMALS, FOWL OR REPTILES PROHIBITED.

(a) No person shall own, keep or harbor any animal, fowl or reptile within the Municipality, which would subject the owner, keeper or harborer thereof to absolute liability in the event such animal, fowl or reptile caused damage to another person or another person's property.



(b) Anything in this section notwithstanding, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) The keeping or harboring of any animal, fowl or reptile by a licensed veterinarian for the purpose of treating such animal, fowl or reptile for disease or injury.

(2) The owning, keeping or harboring of dogs shall in no case be a violation of this section.

(Ord. 28-73. Passed 5-29-73.)

(c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day the animal, fowl or reptile is kept or harbored in violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.

Soooo does that mean you can't keep animals that would cause damage to other people/property, but you can keep animals that wouldn't cause damage? Does anyone speak legalese???

I am NOT an Attorney - merely a reasonable well read person with some odd choices of genre and unusual interests. Normally, I'd offer an opinion. I will do so here.

In my view as a NOT attorney, the key words in this phrase, "which would subject the owner, keeper or harborer thereof to absolute liability" are these:

"Absolute Liability"

that's a legal term of Art which has specific meaning in that jurisdiction. Its not merely liability or [any] liability, or "absolute" would be rendered superfluous - which iss something to be avoided. Courts want to give weight and importance to every word in a statute. An Ohio Lawyer would be much better qualified to tell you what those words mean when used in your State.

 

[Mother-Hen-Michele]

Hi, did you get an answer on the chickens being considered dangerous ? Seems hens would not qualify (but a rooster might as he damages ability to sleep past sunrise)

 

[Mammaclingman]

I would like to get a group together. Go to a city meeting to change the law for backyard chickens. I would pay for a permit and submit a dimension of the coop. Maybe allow us to have 4-6 hens onlh.

 

[Iluveggers]

I would like to get a group together. Go to a city meeting to change the law for backyard chickens. I would pay for a permit and submit a dimension of the coop. Maybe allow us to have 4-6 hens onlh.

Now would be a great time, especially with egg prices rising. I would start with including a provision on keeping chickens confined in some way. People seem to relax more when they know it won’t affect their yards.

 

[Mammaclingman]

I am looking into this. I know some neighboring towns allow hens. Norwalk just changed to allow 6 hens and of course no rooster.