Thanks for your suggestion of pushing the City Manager to fulfill obligations. That's one route we considered but ultimately rejected. One one reads the wording (see below), it becomes clear that this is not really a solution. To start with it has to be for a "specified limited period of time", which means temporary chicken keeping. Secondly, there is supposed to be a "potential benefit to the city or the general public"-- a test other pets don't have to meet.
Finally, this really isn't good use of the City Manager's time and he or she won't face any repercussions from the board for not issuing permits unless it is clear the majority of the Board want citizens to be able to keep chickens, in which case they should remove the burdensome temporary and public benefit restrictions, something we are working on. The good news is that staff is supporting our efforts and people would be able to keep a few hens without a permit if this passes.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) above, the city manager or his designee may, by special permit, authorize the keeping harboring, raising or maintaining of livestock, poultry or rabbits (not within a dwelling) within the city limits . A special permit may only be issued for a specified limited period of time and shall set forth such conditions or requirements as shall be deemed necessary to mitigate the potential adverse effects upon neighboring properties. In determining whether a special permit shall be issued, the city manager or his designee shall consider the nature of the request, the potential benefit to the city or the general public which may result if the special permit is granted, and any adverse effects which neighboring properties may experience if the special permit is granted.
