I've read this a thousand times...

[Brooks_]

Side issue. 109(c), non-poisonous. Pretty sure they meant non-venomous. Maybe the whole thing could be scrapped because the writers didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[NatJ]

The way I read it, the only pets that are allowed are domesticated indoor animals. I certainly get the impression that chicken, aka fowl, are verboten.

Then why did they list "animals and fowl" as permitted categories of pets?

 

[FeatheredRaptor]

Then why did they list "animals and fowl" as permitted categories of pets?

I may have missed that as I just read the spots with the yellow. The best bet is to ask the city, or better yet... move somewhere you don’t have to ask permission.

 

[Brooks_]

Then why did they list "animals and fowl" as permitted categories of pets?

Because reptiles and parrots may not be domesticated house broken, but are usually kept in cages? Maybe they had the good sense to know that keeping a chicken in a cage would be animal cruelty?

 

[NatJ]

I may have missed that as I just read the spots with the yellow. The best bet is to ask the city, or better yet... move somewhere you don’t have to ask permission.

It is in one of the spots with yellow.

Animals and fowl are forbidden, but there's a list of exceptions.

The exception that for pets allows "The maintaining of non-poisonous and non-vicious animals and fowl which are commonly kept as household pets, such as...."

So if they didn't mean chickens, they were rather stupid to use the word "fowl."

Because reptiles and parrots may not be domesticated house broken, but are usually kept in cages? Maybe they had the good sense to know that keeping a chicken in a cage would be animal cruelty?

Depends on what kind of "cage" you're talking about. Some parrot cages have as many square feet as some chicken coops. (Large parrot cages, small chicken coops.)

I've read it a lot and had others read it, and as far as we can see...not against a code?

I'm not sure whether it would make more sense to try for a definitive answer in writing from the authorities, or just get chickens and hope for the best, or go pay a lawyer to read it and give you advice about whether "pet chickens" could be defended in court.

Personally, I think it allows chickens, but other people in this thread are equally sure it bans chickens, so I don't think we're really going to come up with a clear answer for you

 

[Brooks_]

Depends on what kind of "cage" you're talking about. Some parrot cages have as many square feet as some chicken coops. (Large parrot cages, small chicken coops.)

I guess that's where the "common" comes back into play.

 

[AmeliaBedelia]

I think that the bottom line is that the law likely was written with the intent to ban farm animals (including chickens) but allow pet birds like they sell at petsmart - parakeets, etc - BUT it is written loosely/poorly enough that you could argue you aren't technically breaking the law to have pet chickens. But it is a risk, since it all hinges on "common household pet."

I'd check the county regs and then decide if you're feeling like taking a risk. I definitely would try to be low-key about it (tall privacy fence, non-obvious coop/run, quiet breeds, hens only, etc.). Also do check the building ordinances for detached structures...there are usually rules about how close to your house, your property lines, and your neighbors homes you can build, and a size limit if you don't want to have to pull a permit. I'd try not to need a permit...no sense in getting on "the man's" radar...

 

[MrsChickenClucker]

I'm reading it as, you can have any non-viscous animal that is regularly kept as a pet animal (which chickens are now) as long as you keep the coop clean and the chickens quiet.

Once I called my city manager's office to ask about Beekeeping in the backyard in my neighborhood. We spoke about it multiple times, because I was told that my city "is interested in having progressive views" about things like backyard farming, chickens, and bees. They weren't able to find anywhere that said it was AGAINST any code. He went on to tell me that if it isn't expressly stated in the code, it's a grey area, depending on the circumstances. (There's a difference between 10 well-maintained chickens in a nice coop and 20 stinky ones in a large dog crate.) He also truly said that it's easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission from Code Enforcement, and if possible, adhere to some of the same standards that seem to be universal, or if a neighboring city does have a clearly written code, go by that.

 

[Egghead_Jr]

Subsection C of section 109 is not talking about chickens.

What people are trying to do here is say the code is including chickens as common household pets. They are not. Never have been and never will be, they are livestock and that is not allowed by this code. The definition of fowl is including parakeets and the like that are common household pets and exempt to the code.

Look to change the codes instead of violating them. Sure there are people within the city in violation and that can strengthen your coalition of change but not be an excuse that you can violate the code too.

 

[NatJ]

Subsection C of section 109 is not talking about chickens.

What people are trying to do here is say the code is including chickens as common household pets. They are not. Never have been and never will be, they are livestock and that is not allowed by this code. The definition of fowl is including parakeets and the like that are common household pets and exempt to the code.

Then why does the code include a definition of "fowl" that lists chickens, ducks, geese, and similar birds?

As for whether chickens are "common" as household pets: that depends partly on how many people in the same city are already keeping them!