Newton City Council chickens out on proposed changes to poultry ordinance

When a group of Newton residents wanted to loosen code restrictions on the use of urban chickens within city limits, they beseeched council members at public meetings. They appeared quite frequently, in fact. They then gathered signatures and gained an audience with the city’s planning and zoning commission.

Several hearings later their proposal made it to a city council agenda, and there it was stopped dead in its tracks. Only two council members supported the idea — Joel Mills and Melissa Dalton — which was not enough for the action to move past the first consideration, so the amended ordinance failed to advanced further.

Opposition from council members targeted the smells and waste the chickens and ducks would produce and what their effect might be on densely packed neighborhoods. They also pointed out that domestic fowl could attract predators and cause further nuisance to neighbors without chickens or ducks.

They also suggested city living is different than country living.

Council member Steve Mullan commended the grassroots efforts and the due diligence from residents to change city codes, but he ultimately opposed the changes and explained his views in a prepared speech. Mullan was skeptical of the accountability of residents keeping enclosures sanitary, dry and odor free.

He argued whether the size requirement for henhouses and coops of four square feet per bird was enough space for the animals to get healthy exercise. He also questioned the procedures taken by residents if any of the animals should die, and he worried about the risk of spreading bird influenza in town.

Mullan added he lived on a farm for a number of years and was very familiar with raising chickens and ducks, and he understands the challenges in caring for them. He lamented his experience cleaning the chicken house, scraping their defecation from the roost and spreading lime for odor control.

“The ammonia smell and the itching and scratching linger with me even now when I even think about it,” Mullan said.

During a recent visit to the grocery store, Mullan said he purchased a carton of 24 eggs for $4.49, or 18 cents per egg. No messes and no extra work, he said. Mullan pointed out that all the items suggested to be changed are based on the honor system, suggesting a lack of accountability and enforcement.

“Measurements, number of fowl, feeding and watering, henhouse and runway, fees paid per bird, et cetera,” Mullan said. “We already have a problem with unlicensed … dogs and cats in Newton. Do we really want to add chickens and ducks as another burden for enforcement? I think not.”

According to city documents, the new proposal allows for urban chickens or ducks on residential properties in Newton so long as they adhere to certain restrictions. Residents must have a permit, for example, and the fowl can only be cared for on owner-occupied properties and not rentals.

The proposal also imposed limitations on the number of chickens per lot, banned roosters and male ducks and required residents to show proof they took an urban chickens class that the ISU Extension Office provides for $25. The chickens and ducks also had to be contained on the property.

Another key argument from council members opposing the ordinance changes is the significance of separating country living from city living. Mullan said when citizens move into an incorporated city, they also agree to accept certain norms.

Council member Randy Ervin pointed out the planning and zoning commission voted 3-1 on the proposed ordinance. Community Development Director Erin Chambers said the commissioner who voted no was generally against urban chickens. She also noted three commissioners were absent on the final vote.

Newton City Administrator Matt Muckler noted the action didn’t necessarily pass. Since there are seven commissioners, it takes four to pass any action. Chambers said the recommending body technically needs four members present to have a quorum. But passing votes requires a majority of the membership be present.

“So technically the vote of 3-1 is not a passing vote,” Chambers said to council members. “After that vote occurred, those four members voted to forward it on to council with that recommendation recognizing they had done all the work … and that vote passed 4-0.”

When the idea was first proposed to council, Ervin said he was an “absolute no.” But after learning more about urban chickens and seeing how other communities had incorporated similar ordinances into their codes, he was more convinced to say “maybe.” But Ervin was also swayed by Mullan’s speech.

“I also grew up on a farm,” he said. “I was well north of age 40 before I could even eat chicken because of the disgusting, the smell, the nastiness of it. I’m struggling with passing this in the community. I guess I’m reaching out to the other council members for thoughts and what you guys think.”

Ervin later noted he had a problem with the policing, or the enforcement, behind the new ordinance. Staff noted it would be handled through community service officers and the community development department combined. The policing right now is typically driven by complaints or observing noxious odors.

Council member Mark Hallam appreciated the zeal and enthusiasm from proponents of the urban chickens ordinance, but he also agreed with Mullan’s position. In addition to being more burdensome to city staff, Hallam said urban chickens would attract other unwanted animals.

Despite considering himself as more of a libertarian — and therefore having more passionate views on property rights — Hallam sided with Mullan saying people living inside city limits agree to a certain covenant. To him, chickens and ducks are an agricultural use.

Council member Stacy Simbro also recognized the passionate residents who brought this forward, but he was ultimately against the proposal. Still, he offered an amendment to the proposal that required residents to report signs of avian influenza, or bird flu. The amendment passed unanimously.

But the amendment offered only false hopes for supporters of the ordinance, because despite council agreeing to make the changes Simbro suggested the action still failed to pass in a 2-4 vote. Mills and Dalton were more open to the idea of urban chickens. Dalton said she has been around yards with chickens.

“Half the time you don’t even notice there are chickens there,” Dalton said. “Looking at the feedback we received from (Ankeny and Urbandale) … with the population that Ankeny now has they issued 18 total permits. It says in here both cities noted they thought there would be a lot more permits.”

Dalton referred to the questions city staff asked officials from Ankeny and Urbandale about their urban chickens ordinance. Their responses were relayed back to the planning and zoning commission. Both cities thought there would be a lot of negativity, but there was minimal feedback. In fact, most was positive.

Ankeny has only had two complaints about the urban chickens, and only one warning had been issued to an individual for letting their chickens loose in the yard. Dalton understands the reservations from council members, but she does not foresee the urban chickens being that huge of an issue.

“We have some in town that really haven’t had a whole lot of complaints,” she said. “So I guess I share a different belief than a lot of the council members.”

Mills noted Newton already allows chickens and ducks within city limits; the new proposal just makes the code more equitable for residents with smaller properties. Mills was in favor of the changes, and he doubted it would change too many behaviors in town other than those ambitious enough to raise chickens.

“I am not going to stand in the way — and I don’t think this council needs to stand in the way — of what P&Z already approved, as well as what a few very, very minor amount of people want to learn from and do respectfully,” Mills said.

Dalton added the only people hurt by council not passing the ordinance is the people who are actually going to take care of the chickens or ducks. There are people in town that have chickens already, and Dalton pointed out it has not annoyed neighbors enough to turn them in to the city.

“I hear what Steve says when he talks about the mess, but when you’re raising chickens on the farm that is a multitude more chickens than the four or so — give or take your yard space — that people are going to have in their backyard,” she said. “It’s not on the same level at all.”

Erica Paterson, a Newton resident who helped propel the updated urban chickens ordinance forward, approached council members to address some of their comments and concerns. Paterson noted permits would be valid for one year, and if it is denied or revoked individuals cannot reapply for one year.

Acknowledging that some people may bypass city codes or city permissions to own chickens on their properties, Paterson said she decided to not go that route.

She wanted to reach out to council and do things the right way.

“I do wish to do this in a correct way and that is why we are here presenting this,” Paterson said. “I will say also in Ankeny they did say they distribute less than they thought, and yes they had no issues at all. They’ve been doing it for more than a year, and I think Urbandale’s is even longer.”

Paterson likened the comments made about chicken defecation and the bad odors they produce to residents who do not pick up after their dogs.

“I would like the chance to do the right thing in the right way,” she said.