Our strange zoning wording ....

[brinley_s]

So my husband and I have been considering a small number of chickens for a few years now. I grew up on a farm but he gew up in town so when we married we decided to buy our first house in town. We know of people in our city who have chickens, but our zoning is worded kid of funny, and we've also been told by his sister in law that chickens aren't allowed though we can't find any specific ordinance against it. I also know we wouldn't be able to get them without having an ordinance behind us b/c our neighbor is a total quack and we can't even breathe without bothering her so I don't think sharing eggs with her would make her a nicer person

Anyhow - here are the official ordinances from our city - I'd love any thoughts on how we should proceed next:

505.12 COLORING RABBITS OR BABY POULTRY; SALE OR DISPLAY OF POULTRY.


(a) No person shall dye or otherwise color any rabbit or baby poultry, including, but not limited to, chicks and ducklings. No person shall sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, raffle or give away any rabbit or poultry which has been dyed or otherwise colored. No poultry younger than four weeks of age may be sold, given away or otherwise distributed to any person in lots of less than six. Stores, shops, vendors and others offering young poultry for sale or other distribution shall provide and operate brooders or other heating devices that may be necessary to maintain poultry in good health, and shall keep adequate food and water available to the poultry at all times. (ORC 925.62)



(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

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.

505.08 NUISANCE CONDITIONS PROHIBITED.

(a) No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the Municipality so as to create noxious, or offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public.


(b) No person being the owner, keeper or person having control of a dog, cat, or other domestic animal or fowl, shall permit such animal to dig or defecate on any public or private property in the City, other than the property of the owner or person in control of such animal, or allow any animal to damage any part of a lawn, tree, shrub, plant, building or other property, other than the property of the owner or person in control of such animal, by means of urination. The foregoing prohibition as to defecation shall not apply when the person in control of such animal immediately removes all feces deposited by it and disposes of the same in a sanitary manner.

 

[Bi0s]

move i say LOL

 

[chicky_mommy]

Call your local dog warden, they will be able to tell you in simple terms the ABSOLUTE law reguarding keeping chickens.

I know where I live, I am only allowed to keep 2LF or 4Bantam birds on my property, and none of them can be male.
I also know that all out buildings must be "astetically pleasing," and as with dogs I am required to have them licensensed with my town.

Twice my neighbor (a real B***H) has called the police who told me I was in violation of several town ordinancesand, and in turn called the dog warden. When my local dog warden arrived she inspected my coop and run and told me my birds were being kept with in the law, it was a stressful process that took several hours to ressolve but in the end it was resolved.

 

[schellie69]

I would read all of the code regarding keeping animals here is an example of what are code looks like
Sec. 7-31. Prohibited owning; exemptions.
(a) The owning, harboring, keeping, possessing or selling of any wild, exotic, poisonous or vicious animal
within the city limits is hereby prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to:
(1) Those wild or exotic animals kept under a rehabilitation or scientific and exhibition permit of the Kansas
Wildlife and Parks Department.
(2) Zoos, circuses, carnivals, veterinarian clinics in possession of such animals during treatment, educational
institutions or medical institutions.
(3) Persons temporarily transporting such animals through the city.
- 96-
(b) The owning of any fowl within the city limits is hereby prohibited, except:
(1) Caged birds kept as pets within a residence structure; or
(2) Ducks and geese with a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of water per duck or goose. Each
location is limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) water fowl; or
(3) The owning of chickens shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) per residence, kept in accordance with kept in accordance with
section 7-33;
(4) Pigeons, kept in accordance with section 7-33;
(5) Other domestic fowl, kept in accordance with section 7-31(c)(2).
(c) No livestock, including but not limited to horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, and swine, shall be owned,
or maintained within the city limits, except:
(1) Horses which are used for riding purposes may be stabled within the city limits only in designated areas which
have been given a special permit for the purpose by the City-County Health Department. Such designated areas,
for the purpose of health and sanitation, shall be under the supervision of the health officer. If at any time such
designated areas shall become a nuisance or a fly-breeding or rat-infested area, the health officer shall have the
authority to revoke such special permit within ten (10) days after notifying the board of commissioners.
(2) Livestock in conjunction with livestock auctions, livestock shows and rodeos given a permit by the City-
County Health Department.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

You need to find out what your zoning district is and look up the allowed uses for that district.

"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."
seems to contradict the implied ability to keep these animals in "505.08 NUISANCE CONDITIONS PROHIBITED.

(a) No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the Municipality so as to create noxious, or offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public.


(b) No person being the owner, keeper or person having control of a dog, cat, or other domestic animal or fowl, shall permit such animal to..."

I am not quite sure eactly what "...which would subject the owner, keeper or harborer thereof to absolute liability in the event such animal, fowl or reptile caused damage ..." means.

 

[brinley_s]

Thanks for your input - we are totally stumped too - we thought we'd bounce the info off of you guys first before heading back to the city. Thanks so much

 

[HogbackMtnChickns]

Quote:
"Absolute liability" has a legal meaning. It is equivalent to "strict liability." This is a legal concept meaning that a person is liable for damages even if he or she was not negligent and had no reasonable knowledge or intent that the damage would be caused. It is hard to say what your ordinance means, precisely, but my best guess is that your state imposes "absolute liability" for owning certain types of animals. Often times that could be exotic or wild animals, but it is possible that it includes domesticated animals. I think this ordinance must either define those animals to which absolute liability attaches, or it piggy-backs on definitions from your state statutes. I think it is trying to say: there are certain types of animals that are so dangerous that under the law of this state you would be absolutely liable for any damages the animal caused at any time - you cannot have that kind of dangerous animal in our city limits. As to what kinds of animals fit the "dangerous" category -- you need more information to know what the heck they are talking about.

I think it would be worth a call to an attorney in your area to look into and clarify this information for you. Fascinating question. I am guessing that this is an OLD ordinance.

The ordinance on nuisance animals implies that fowl can be kept in the town. If fowl were prohibited - why would it be necessary to say that they can't dig up or poop on public property. I think you have a good shot at being able to keep chickens. Unless there is a clear cut definition that puts chickens in the category of those "dangerous" creatures giving rise to absolute liability, it would be very difficult for a municipality to claim that this ordinance gave you clear guidance that chickens were not allowed.

Good luck

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
"Absolute liability" has a legal meaning. It is equivalent to "strict liability." This is a legal concept meaning that a person is liable for damages even if he or she was not negligent and had no reasonable knowledge or intent that the damage would be caused. It is hard to say what your ordinance means, precisely, but my best guess is that your state imposes "absolute liability" for owning certain types of animals. Often times that could be exotic or wild animals, but it is possible that it includes domesticated animals. I think this ordinance must either define those animals to which absolute liability attaches, or it piggy-backs on definitions from your state statutes. I think it is trying to say: there are certain types of animals that are so dangerous that under the law of this state you would be absolutely liable for any damages the animal caused at any time - you cannot have that kind of dangerous animal in our city limits. As to what kinds of animals fit the "dangerous" category -- you need more information to know what the heck they are talking about.

I think it would be worth a call to an attorney in your area to look into and clarify this information for you. Fascinating question. I am guessing that this is an OLD ordinance.

The ordinance on nuisance animals implies that fowl can be kept in the town. If fowl were prohibited - why would it be necessary to say that they can't dig up or poop on public property. I think you have a good shot at being able to keep chickens. Unless there is a clear cut definition that puts chickens in the category of those "dangerous" creatures giving rise to absolute liability, it would be very difficult for a municipality to claim that this ordinance gave you clear guidance that chickens were not allowed.

Good luck

It is always wise to check the definitions and rules of construction sections.