Not too long ago a suggestion about amending our town's very restrictive animal ordinance (passed in 1967 and bans about everything) was the subject of ridicule. The subject came up at a town planning meeting when a member of the commission (me) found nothing wrong with vegetable gardens in front yards. "The next thing you know people will want chickens in their yard too" came the response from one of our public servants. Well, yes; that too. In the meantime, we have put a garden in our 4th st. front yard, and would seriously entertain the possibility of chickens, and even a goat. In fact, the goat ranks higher with me, as a very affordable lawn mower.
We live in an agricultural zone. Small animals are cleaner that dogs (Ridgely allows kennels) and not only appropriate, but increasingly a means to cut costs of burgeoning food budgets. No one is advocating pigstys. (However, pet pot bellied pigs should be given a reprive.)
Anyhow, action on animal restrictions is now happening around America. One of the places where I spent a number of years, Greensboro, N.C. (population 238,000), has caught up with its citizens and amended its ordinances. Can Ridgely be far behind?
Credit: Robert Franklin / News & Record
URBAN FARMING
The Greensboro City Council's newly adopted poultry and bee ordinance:* prohibits adult roosters* requires chickens to be penned* requires poultry to be kept in backyards* establishes a 25-foot setback requirement for lots between 7,000 and 12,000 square feet and odd-shaped lots that cannot meet a 50-foot setback, as long as chickens are housed 50 feet from a neighboring residence* limits residences that use the 25-foot setback to one hen per 3,000 square feet and one bee colony per 2,000 square feet* bans poultry or bee keeping on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet
GREENSBORO - Chicken lovers are in cluck.
The Greensboro City Council voted to loosen the rules and allow chickens and bees on small residential lots.
The unanimous vote also will provide a little peace for neighbors of the urban farmers. The new ordinance bans noisy adult roosters and limits the number of chickens and bee colonies on any one lot.
Chicken owner and Lindley Park resident Brian Talbert worked with city staff to amend the poultry and beekeeping ordinance after he learned that his lot did not meet the city's 50-foot setback requirements.
Talbert's backyard coop became a problem after his rooster, Elvis, rattled neighbor Sherry O'Neal with a 4:15 a.m. wakeup call.
On Tuesday night, Greensboro's chicken owners said they keep the poultry for the eggs, but they consider them pets.
Billy Jones, who spoke on behalf of the amendment, has four hens and one rooster named Gus. He said his neighbors enjoy the eggs, but he promised that if the rooster bugged them, he would take care of it.
"I promised them, if we did have a problem with the rooster, I would fry it," Jones said.
O'Neal, who spoke against the amendment, said she was concerned about the noise and the farm smells in her neighborhood, where the lots are small and residences are close together.
Under the newly amended ordinance, residents can keep bees and chickens on lots as small as 7,000 square feet, as long as they are housed at least 50 feet from any neighboring homes. The new rules also limit urban farmers to one bee colony per 2,000 square feet and one hen per 3,000 square feet of property for lots that don't meet the setback requirement.
"I think that is a reasonable request, particularly if we limit the number of hives," Talbert said. "We limit the number of hens."
The City Council requested that city staff give some consideration for roosters that already live in neighborhoods but will soon be banned.
"We don't want to get Gus fried," Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wrote a letter to the town commissioners, to which they did not respond. There is nothing wrong with small town farming, only the idea of city folk moving to the country only to progressively make it more resemble the city.
Dear Ridgely Town Commissioners:
I am writing to express my wish to amend the town code, regarding animals which are prohibited in the town. Specifically I am referring to code 64-4.
I would like to propose that instead of prohibiting animals such as; poultry, pigeons, rabbits, guinea pigs and pigs, that the town should write a more detailed code limiting numbers of such animals. Such an amendment would be something similar to this:
Ownerships of animals, other than domestic cats and dogs, will be kept
with the same humane standards as dogs and cats, according to code.
Ownerships of guinea pigs and rabbits should be limited to 2 within a
household. Domestic breeds of swine may be housed as a pet but are
limited to 1 in a single family residence. Swine kept as a pet would be
subject to the same regulation as dogs regarding care and treatment.
Chickens, ducks, or exotic birds may be kept not to exceed 4 birds per
single family residence. Birds must be kept as PETS and in a humane
manner.
My interest in this matter stems from my family’s roots in this farming community. My Great-grand mother Blunt owned a 20 acre farmette on Crouse Mill Road. I try to foster my daughter’s love of nature and gardening in small ways. Our desire to have a few hens led me to find that they are prohibited according to code. Because Caroline County’s roots began in agriculture, I believe this code should be revisited and amended.
Thank you for your attention to my expressed concerns. I feel certain that other residents of the town would support my request.
Post a Comment