HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5198 ORDINANCE NO, 5198
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY REPEALING AND REPLACING UDC SECTION
164.04: ANIMALS AND FOWL, TO PERMIT A PROPERTY
OWNER TO KEEP A MAXIMUM OF FOUR CHICKENS
(HENS) WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE CPTY.
SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville encourages a sustainable and local economy that may
include local produce or small-scale use of certain fowl, such as chickens; and
WHEREAS, chickens are identified as agricultural or barn-yard animals and are thus
currently not permitted within residential zones of the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of a home-owner's property to keep hens, along with specific
restrictions regarding cleanliness, enclosures, separation from adjacent structures, noise, and a
limited number permitted on each property, is a compatible and reasonable request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby repeals and
replaces Unified Development Code Section 164.04: Animals and Fowl, as shown as "Exhibit A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof. ,�..%�'RK%TR ''' ,,
Off' �
� . . . . ,�S
G\ZY pc . G
PASSED and APPROVED this 2nd day of December, 2008. ;��• •?A
; FAYETTEVILLE ;
APPROVED: ATTEST: 4:
9s.
Goo *"9RkANSP�'
By: �& dl �Z4�� By: '' ""jGi,Ou
DAN COODY, Mayor SO RA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
• Exhibit "A" •
ADM 08-3094
Page 1 of 2
CHAPTER 164: SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING REGULATIONS
164.04 Animals And Fowl (8) Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be
"grandfathered" or permitted to remain after
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or the effective date of this Ordinance.
allow any domesticated animal or fowl to run at
large within the corporate limits of the city. (9) The City may further restrict the use of fowl
within residential districts if it causes a public
(B) Animals traditionally associated with the practice nuisance or public health issue as defined in
of livestock raising or farm animals, such as City Codes.
horses, goats, swine, chickens, cows and other
such animals are not considered pets and are not (10) All regulations administered by the Animal
permitted within any zoning district in the city Services Division sha!I be enforceable by
limits, with the exception of R-A, Residential law, and this ordinance shall not supersede
Agricultural or other zoning districts in which Use or replace any regulation thereof.
Unit #6, Agriculture and Use Unit #7, Animal
Husbandry are permitted uses by right, unless (D) The above Section C is not intended to apply to
otherwise stated herein. indoor birds kept as pets, such as, but not limited
to, parrots or parakeets, nor to the lawful
(C) It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or transportation of fowl through the corporate limits
allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the of the city. Neither shall it apply to fowl kept in
city in all Residential zones under the following areas of the City which are zoned R-A,
terms and conditions: Residential Agricultural, or other zoning districts
in which Use Unit #6, Agriculture and Use Unit
(1 ) The principal use of the property shall be a #7, Animal Husbandry are permitted uses by
single family dwelling. No fowl shall be right.
allowed in multi-family complexes, including
two-family and three-family dwellings. (E) Separation of use. The following uses, where
permitted, shall be conducted no nearer than the
(2) No more than four (4) hens shall be allowed following stated number of feet to the boundary of
for each single-family dwelling. an R District, or to a dwelling on the same
premises.
(3) No roosters shall be allowed.
(4) There shall be no outside slaughtering of 25 FEET
hens. Chicken Coop in Residential districts (from residential
dwelling on adjacent lot
(5) All hens must be kept in a secure, fenced
enclosure constructed with a minimum area
of 100 square feet. All hens shall be kept in 50 FEET
the side or rear yard, and may not be Animal hospital; serving household pets and similar small
permitted in the front yard area. animals
Commercial breeding, raisin
(6) A Chicken coop/roost area shall not be Boarding: breeding, raising, or boarding of household pets or
located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to similar small animals for commercial purposes
any residential structure on an adjacent lot, Kennel
and shall meet building setbacks. Egg fans
(7) Enclosures must be kept in a neat and 100 FEET
sanitary condition at all times, and must be
cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent Animal hospital: serving livestock and similar animals
offensive odors, attraction of flies or vermin, Boarding or training of horses
the creation of an environment otherwise Dairy fans
Poultinjurious to the public health and safety, or Farm fans
that would obstruct the free use of property Farm: for raising cattle, goats, horses, sheep, rabbits and
poultry
so as to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property by members of
the neighborhood, city, or other persons.
CD164:1
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
200 FEET
Ho raisin
livestock: assembly, breeding, feeding, sales or shi ment
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 7 (3); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70;
Code 1991 , §160.078; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A.), 6-16-98)
CD164:2
a k,b
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 1Z-/ Z469
61gg
City Council Agenda Items Ayn6d IbglbV
and
Contracts, Leases orAgreements
y ,{wak ! 6015
a6FfF2BC8' �����d r�1'
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
ADM 08-3094 (UDC Ch. 164.04 Animals & Fowl): An ordinance amending Ch. 164.04 of the Unified Development
Code to permit a property owner to keep a maximum of four chickens (hens) within residential districts of the city,
subject to the restrictions of the ordinance.
Cost of this request Category / Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Dale Program / Project Category Name
Project Number - Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
bepartmerh Director Date
Original Contrail Date:
a b Original Contract Number:
City Attorfey Date
Received in City "' rctg►J
0. f1 p ^ z � - O8 Clerk's Office
Finance and Internal Service Director Date vt ! V D
Received in
Mayor's Office
Mayor Date
Comments:
11W 64 40WIAd 11T
Re ' ed April 16, 200 1,5 �/Ooo
T 1 •
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2008
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations �q
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning b�
Date: September 19, 2008
Subject: UDC Ch. 16.04 Animals & Fowl (ADM 08-3094)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to Ch. 164
of the Unified Development Code, Animals and Fowl, to permit a property owner to keep a
maximum of four chickens (hens) within residential districts of the City, subject to the restrictions
listed.
BACKGROUND
The City of Fayetteville's zoning regulations do not currently permit typical barnyard, livestock
or farm animals to be . kept within the municipal limits, unless the property is zoned R-A,
Residential Agricultural. The reason for this regulation is typically associated with nuisances that
come about from often intense farming or livestock operations: odor, noise, sanitary conditions,
etc. Staff has investigated numerous violations regarding various animals within the City over the
years, including horses, cows, chickens, ducks, pigs, , rabbits and other such animals. Staff
recently discussed with a City Council member a violation of a citizen who was raising hens in
her back yard. After explaining the ordinance requirement, we were asked to draft an ordinance to
present to the Planning Commission and City Council to permit chickens within the city limits,
subject to certain restrictions. After some research into various other municipalities across the
country, it became apparent that this was an issue that has been raised in hundreds of cities in the
nation, with many ordinances being re-drafted to allow the raising of chickens, which can be a
low-impact, sustainable source of income or food. Presented to the Council is a draft of an
ordinance that pulls information from several of these cities, and adapted to fit Fayetteville.
The proposal is to amend the current Ch. 164.04, Animals and Fowl, of the Unified Development
Code, to permit up to four hens to be raised in all residential districts of the City, provided the use
on the property is a single family residence. Other stipulations include:
• None allowed in 2F, 3F or MF complexes (issues of sanitary conditions, density, etc.)
• No more than four hens (cities vary from 3 to 25, or sometimes base it on lot size; staff
chose to keep it at a low number, to allow both large and small lots this use)
• No roosters (to reduce noise issues)
• No slaughtering of animals outside
• All hens must be kept in a secure enclosure; when the owner is present, they may be let
out of the enclosure, as long as the yard is fenced
• Must be kept in side or rear yard — no front yard use
• The enclosure must be kept 40 feet from any residential structure on adjacent lots and
must meet building setbacks
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2008
Agenda Item Number
• Must be kept neat and sanitary at all times
• Not applicable to R-A districts
A list of cities with similar ordinances includes:
• Portland, OR
• Spokane, WA
• Little Rock AR
• Seattle, WA
• Round Rock, TX
• Burlington, VT
• San Antonio, TX
• Anaheim, CA
• Madison, WI
• St. Louis, MO
• Louisville, KY
• Boise, ID
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 6-2-0 (Kennedy and Graves voting `No') in favor of this request
on September 22, 2008. An amendment was made to increase the distance from the enclosure
and adjacent residential structures from 25 feet to 40 feet. Staff finds the permission of a
maximum of four hens within the city limits in residential districts, with the provisions suggested
in the ordinance, will contribute to a more sustainable and local lifestyle and will not detract from
nor reduce the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by other members of the city.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 164.04:
ANIMALS AND FOWL, TO PERMIT A PROPERTY OWNER
TO KEEP A MAXIMUM OF FOUR CHICKENS (HENS)
WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE CITY, SUBJECT
TO THE RESTRICTIONS HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville encourages a sustainable and local economy that may
include local produce or small-scale use of certain fowl, such as chickens; and
WHEREAS, chickens are identified as agricultural or bam-yard animals and are thus
currently not permitted within residential zones of the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of a home-owner's property to keep hens, along with specific
restrictions regarding cleanliness, enclosures, separation from adjacent structures, noise, and a
limited number permitted on each property, is a compatible and reasonable request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby repeals and
replaces Unified Development Code Chapter 164.04: Animals and Fowl, as shown as "Exhibit A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2008.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By.
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
Exhibit "A"
ADM 08-3094
Page 1 of 1
CHAPTER 164: SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING REGULATIONS
(8) Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be
164.04 Animals And Fowl "grandfathered" or permitted to remain after
the effective date of this Ordinance.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or
allow any domesticated animal or fowl to run at (9) The City may further restrict the use of fowl
large within the corporate limits of the city. within residential districts if it causes a public
nuisance or public health issue as defined in
(B) Animals traditionally associated with the practice City Codes.
of livestock raising or fans animals, such as
horses, goats, swine, chickens, cows and other (10) All regul iopnr s administered by the Animal
such animals are not considered pets and are not ServiIwsion shall be enforceable by
permitted within any zoning district in the city law, and : _ is ordinance shall not supersede
limits, with the exception of R-A, Residential o re,lla an egulation thereof.
Agricultural, unless otherwise stated herein. _
(D) ,above Section+G i not intended to apply to
(C) It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or indoor birds kept asp tel such as, but not limited
allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the to, parrots or para keeets, , or to the lawful
city in all Residential zones under the following transportation of fowl 1hro0gh a corporate limits
terms and conditions: of the ci either shall it p iy to fowl kept in
areas t e City which rrezoned R-A,
(1 ) The principal use of the property shall be a es dentia Agricultural.
single family dwelling. No fowl shall be
allowed in multi-family complexes, iI� ldr (E) e�parafion of use. The following uses, where
two-family and three-family dwellings. pei i6� d, shall be conducted no nearer than the
follov3i�1 gtated number of feet to the boundary of
(2) No more than four (4) hens shall be allowed an R Distncl, or to a dwelling on the same
for each single-family dwelling. premises.
(3) No roosters shall be �
Jr.4FEET
(4) There shall bKeed
ralulowed,ide Naig6hering of Fowl Enclosure in Residential districts (from residential
hens. dwellingon adjacent lot
(5) All hens must n a sAreencd�osure� o
constructed at lea'IT feety'above the t50 FEET
'MWWsu a& evgroundx en the owner is no Animal hospital; serving household pets and similar small
*rese t: Nfhen 'theowneis' resent all hens animals
ust be kept in a %overA enclosure or a Commercial breedin , raisinIiced endosuvuf�`�alj3time5IhfaCnS Shall Boarding: breeding, raising, or boarding of household pets or
hoke tin the side or�r�e^ar�yard,ad#ma not similar small animals for commercial purposes
errmitted in the front and area. Kennel
E fano
(6) No�sure shall be I cated closer than
forty (Z0)'feet to any resltle tial structure on
an adjact St, eands'j�all meet building 100 FEET
setbacks. Animal hos ital: servin livestock and similar animals
Boardin or trainin of horses
(7) Enclosuresmt in a neat and Dairy farm
sanitary condition at all times, and must be Poultry farm
cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent Farm: for raising cattle, goats, horses, sheep, rabbits and
offensive odors, attraction of flies or vermin, poultry
the creation of an environment otherwise
injurious to the public health and safety, or
that would obstruct the free use of property 200 FEET
so as to interfere with the comfortable Hog raisin
enjoyment of life or property by members of Livestock: assembly, breeding, feeding, sales or shipment
the neighborhood, city, or other persons.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 7 (3); Ob. No. 1747, 6-29-70;
Code 1991 , §160.078; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A.), 6-16-98)
CD164:1
Planning Commission
September 8, 2008
Page 12 of 18
ADM 08-3094: (UDC CHAPTER 164.04, ANIMALS & FOWL): Submitted by Planning Staff, a
request to amend Chapter 164 of the UDC, Unified Development Code, Animals & Fowl. The
proposed amendment would permit 4 hens to be kept within residential districts, subject to several
restrictions to achieve compatibility with adjacent land uses.
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave the staff report. The proposed amendment for
consideration was requested by a City Council member, to address a citizen's request. Currently the
City's zoning regulations do not permit any type of barnyard/agricultural animals within residential
districts. These determinations have occasionally been tested, and interpreted consistently. The
reason for the regulation is most likely associated with nuisances that come about from intensive
farm uses: odor, noise, and sanitary issues. Staff has discussed potential issues with Jill Hatfield
from the Animal Services Division and also did research with other cities with regard to allowing
chickens within their city limits. There are many across-the-board requirements that other cities have
that we are proposing: no roosters; a maximum number of hens, which is often based on lot area; we
have decided on four hens maximum. In addition most cities have requirements for enclosures,
which we have decided must be above the ground, kept sanitary, and that Animal Services could
inspect. Another concern was that we wanted to limit this to single-family residences, despite the
zoning. This will potentially allow chickens to be kept in multi-family zoning districts, as long as it
is single family home that occupies the property. Another stipulation we are proposing is that the
hens must be kept in the enclosure if the owner is not present, but they may be allowed out so long as
they are kept within a fenced back or side yard area. The enclosure must be kept 25 feet from any
residential structure. This ordinance would not be applicable to R-A districts, where it is a use by
right. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Commissioner Trumbo opened the floor to public comment.
Steve Nolan, 2154 Manor Dr., I have lived in Fayetteville since 1951 . Three items I would like to
consider tonight. First, everyone in Fayetteville has the potential of residing downwind or downhill
from these birds. Twenty-five feet in new neighborhoods will place them directly on the property
line. Second issue is health. Poultry have diseases that may be transmitted to humans. We would
not be able to control these chickens like we control our dogs with vaccinations for rabies, etc.
Third, due to the diversity of Fayetteville we feel that some might interpret this to mean that other
domesticated animals could be raised on their property. I encourage you to vote no on this
ordinance.
No additional public comment was received.
Commissioner Graves stated that one of his concerns was the selection of one species of animal and
allowing that but not others. I can think of people who have pot bellied pigs as a pet kept in the
house. Under this ordinance, it would not be allowed while chickens would be. Mr. Nolan is correct
in the commercial farming aspect; there are a lot of commonly transmitted diseases, and nothing here
that would include disease control for these types of animals within municipal limits. Why are we
carving out an allowance for this one type of animal when it seems to be more appropriate as an
agricultural use and left well enough alone?
Planning Commission •
September 8, 2008
Page 13 of 18
Pate stated that the first reason they were raising the issue was because it was brought to their
attention by a City Council member. Keeping chickens on residential property is also associated
with the sustainability movement by allowing more direct access to food and resources. Many
subdivision covenants would prohibit them. In my time with the city we have processed at least five
or six violations for chickens, and the outcome is that they have always had to be removed. This
ordinance wouldn't necessarily prohibit any other animal than we already do.
Commissioner Graves stated that although he understands why the ordinance amendment is being .
proposed, he doesn't understand why we would make an exception for chickens and not ducks, pigs,
or rabbits, which might also contribute to sustainable agriculture.
Commissioner Trumbo stated he personally knows some current violators who use the chickens
specifically for their eggs. He recognizes that it is catching on, it is grassroots, done cleanly, and
there are only 3 or 4 birds at these places. He understands why people would want this passed.
Commissioner Winston asked if the chickens are penned and somebody builds a house within 25 ,
feet of the chicken pen, would the pen or the house need to be moved?
Pate stated that the enclosure would be required to be moved.
Commissioner Anthes asked whether it was the secure enclosure, or the fenced area the chickens .
could be let out to that would be the area that must be 25 feet from a structure.
Pate stated it was the enclosure.
Commissioner Anthes asked if staff would be amenable to a distance greater than 25 feet.
Pate stated it was certainly up to the Commission for consideration.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that we might also look at the property line as opposed to the
next structure to avoid what Mr. Nolan was talking about, where you could put it on the edge of the
property as long as the house was 25 feet away. It might be that you would want to look at the
property line as opposed to the residential structure, as it would ensure that it would be further away,
because of the setbacks also.
Commissioner Pate stated that the reason we did not go with the 25 feet from adjacent property
lines is that on a 50-foot wide lot it would essentially not be permitted, because you could not be 25
feet away from each property line.
Commissioner Anthes stated she was thinking that the minimum distance from a property line
should be five feet, which would keep it so you're not putting your coop directly on a property line.
Planning Commission
Seplember 8, 2008
Page 14 of 18
Motion:
Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a
recommendation for approval, changing line 3 on pg. 2 to read "the enclosure must be kept 40 feet
from any residential structure, and must be contained within the building setback line."
Commissioner Myres seconded the motion.
Commissioner Anthes stated the language needs to be placed in the chapter under #5, so in addition
to altering the staff report, it would need to be rewritten in the language.
Commissioner Kennedy stated he agrees with Commissioner Graves in that he does not understand
why the amendment allows only chickens and not any other barnyard animals, and that he will vote
no.
Pate stated that the Planning Commission requires five votes to forward the amendment.
Upon roll call the motion to forward the request passed with a vote of 6-2-0, with
Commissioners Graves and Kennedy voting no.
t
9/9/2008 Planning- Form mail from MOssFayeftevillel - Chicken ordinance Page 1
From: <jkrees@cox.net>
To: <webmaster@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 9/8/2008 7:25 PM
Subject: [Form mail from AccessFayettevillej - Chicken ordinance
CC: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
From: Kriste Rees
Email: jkrees@cox.net
To: planning@ci.fayetteviIle.ar.us
Subject: Chicken ordinance
Message:
I support the chicken ordinance. I see no difference in having a chicken in my backyard and having a dog
in my backyard--except that dogs bark and keep my awake.
Thanks,
Kriste Rees
1644 E. Susan
Fayetteville, AR 72703