A little more than a dozen concerned members of the public came out Monday, March 20 for the Boulder City Council meeting, where they voiced their concerns about the proposed animal ordinance, particularly when it comes to how many chickens residents can have within city limits.
The support for chickens was heard, as the City Council has decided to redraft the animal ordinance to read that there will be no restrictions on the amount of chickens that can be owned on a non-commercial property.
The exact language for this will be determined by the city’s attorney, Ed Guza.
“This is an important document, and we want to get it right,” said City Council Chairman Drew Dawson.
A lot of research goes into making a decision on the animal ordinance, but it goes beyond that, said City Council member Bear Taylor, who did most of the talking on the proposed ordinance on Monday and at the previous meeting on Feb. 21, where he suggested the six-chicken limit for households within city limits.
This was not a popular suggestion. Those who have chickens, as well as those who don’t, expressed support for having plenty more than six. Community member Dean Grenz, who currently has 20 chickens, said 50-75 chickens isn’t far-fetched for a local operation. If the resident has the space and has the time to care for them, he believes the opportunity to raise that amount of chickens should be welcomed.
“I think you should encourage people to raise chickens instead of discourage them,” Grenz said.
Taylor said he fully supports being self-sufficient, and he fully supports the right to raise chickens. He loves chickens, he said (“I eat them every day.”) Nevertheless, the old animal ordinance was in need of revision, as he said it had a lot of gray area. It was open-ended, he said, and in some places contradictory. It was unclear on nuisance animals and had no protection for neighbors if a large commercial chicken operation were to move in next door (as had been proposed during a recent phone call to the City).
Before determining what decision to make on this matter, Taylor wanted to hear from the public, and he’s glad he did.
“We rely on our citizens to voice their opinions so we know what’s best for our community,” Taylor said at the meeting, “so I appreciate those of you who are here.”
Aside from the chicken elements of the ordinance, the City Council also addressed some livestock-related language. The Council agreed to update language to allow for two horses per two acres. This does not apply to those who own more than five acres of property in town, as those landowners typically host a majority of their livestock outside of city limits.
Taylor also said the miniature pig wording was struck from the ordinance, following what he considered unsuccessful discussion on how to enforce it properly. This was appreciated by Basin resident Jackie Colombe, who shared her concerns regarding a 30-pound limit for mini-pigs. She said this is unrealistic, as mini-pigs easily go over 30 pounds.
This was about it for non-chicken-related conversation on the ordinance. Early on in the dicussion, Taylor shared where the idea for six chickens came from to begin with, saying it was a result of research he did on chicken ordinances for similar-sized communities. Many of the other towns limited chickens to three, he said, and he knew that was far too few. But six, as he discovered, is not a magic number.
Some residents voiced frustration Monday that the six-chicken cap prevented them from being self-sufficient, especially considering the price of eggs.
“In my opinion we should be able to have as many chickens as we can comfortably raise,” said Debra Colella.
Many benefits of having chickens were shared, but how many chickens remained unresolved, but one thing was clear: “six chickens is not enough.”
“Don’t go any lower than at least 12 or 15,” said Cheryl Haasakker.
Although a number wasn’t determined, Taylor said focusing potential restrictions toward a commercial operation instead of the non-commercial operations feels like the best way to remedy the situation, so much so he said he wished he’d thought of it at last month’s meeting. Nevertheless, a plan is in place moving forward and more discussion will occur at the April 17 City Council meeting, at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. Once again, the public is encouraged to participate.
“It is our job to listen to our constituents,” Dawson said.
