Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Town Council okays chicken ordinance on first reading only

Back To Front Page

 

By KEVIN NEVERS

The Chesterton Town Council may have a soft spot for chickens.

At their meeting Monday night, members voted 5-0 to approve on first reading--but on first reading only--an ordinance which would allow folks who live on lots of a half-acre or smaller to keep chickens.

But only under closely defined conditions, including the following:

* A maximum of four hens--but no roosters--would be permitted.

* They would need to be kept in a securely enclosed rear yard, in a coop with a minimum area of 10 square feet per chicken.

* They would need to be provided water and feed at all time.

* All supplies of feed would have to be contained so as not to attract vermin.

* 4H-ers who already keep chickens in town, under current Town Code, would be exempt from the conditions of this ordinance.

Town Attorney Chuck Lukmann told members that his associate, Julie Paulson, did an eggsellent job researching the issue and found that a large number of municipalities in Indiana already do permit the keeping of chickens under similar conditions.

Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, made it clear that he, for one, preferred not to cast a final vote on the ordinance on Monday but to wait two more weeks, should some last-minute tweaking become necessary. But DeLaney also made it clear that he rather likes the idea of chicken-keeping in town. Over the last month or so, he said, four people have approached him to “adamantly” voice their opposition to chickens. But “14 others want it,” DeLaney added. “Make that 15. I’m for it too.”

“There’s nothing wrong with chickens,” DeLaney continued. “Dogs are worse. Dogs leave waste in your yard. And lots of other communities in Indiana allow chickens.”

Member Nick Walding, R-3rd, made this point as well: current Town Code already allows those who reside on lots of larger than one-half acre to keep chickens. But Town Code in no way protects them from the code officer if their hens become a nuisance or a health concern, Walding said.

Earlier in the meeting, Victoria Dudek made an impassioned, intelligent plea for urban chickens from the floor, after noting that she and her husband moved here eight years ago and “fell in love with the town” precisely because it’s so “innovative” a municipality.

Chickens, Dudek said, “are not burdensome or disruptive at all,” so long as they are kept, as all pets must be kept, “responsibly.” Urban chickens “keep the bugs at bay,” their droppings “fertilize gardens,” and their eggs are healthier than those produced in mass-laying operations.

Any number of big cities already allow urban chickens, Dudek added, including South Bend, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oreg. Permitting them in Chesterton would continue the town’s tradition of innovation, she said, would likely attract new residents, and could conceivably prove to be a small arrow in the quiver of economic development.

One person did object to the chicken ordinance, Paul Tharp, who at the council’s last meeting argued that allowing chickens in Chesterton would be unfair to his sister, who years ago was forced to move outside town limits because her potbellied pig was found to be in violation of the same provision of Town Code which prohibits chickens. On Monday Tharp suggested that the resident who first broached the issue in November, Marcus Key of 2010 W. Porter Ave., is probably unaware of the sporadic way in which hens lay eggs. Key would need many more than four hens, Tharp said, to keep his family in eggs.

Key, however, apparently does happen to know something about chickens, having kept them on the farm he grew up on in Kentucky. “I’m not looking for an egg factory,” he said. “I want pet hens for my kids, to give them the same experience I had growing up.”

 

 

Posted 12/9/2014

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search