HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvisional adoption of Ordinance 1767, amending Title 6, domestic chickens1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brit Fontenot, Assistant to the City Manager
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Provisional adoption of Ordinance 1767, amending Title 6 by adding
section 6.04.070 regulating the keeping of domestic chickens within the corporate limits of the
City of Bozeman AND amending Title 18 section 18.80.080 defining agricultural activity.
MEETING DATE: September 14, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Consider provisionally adopting Ordinance No. 1767 amending Title 6 by adding section
6.04.070 regulating the keeping of domestic chickens within the corporate limits of the City
of Bozeman;
3) Amend Title 18 section 18.80.080 defining agricultural activity; and
4) If approved, direct Staff to return to the Commission during the 30-day effective period
with a chicken keeping permit fee resolution.
BACKGROUND:
SECTION I
For the purposes of this memo, the word “chickens” specifically refers to female chickens
or hens. Staff is not recommending the legalization of the keeping of adult roosters
within the City of Bozeman (City).
At the June 8, 2009 City Commission meeting several members of the public spoke in
favor of amending Title 6 to allow for the lawful keeping of chickens in the City. The
Bozeman City Commission (Commission) requested that Staff research amendments to
Titles 6 [Animals] and 18 [Unified Development Ordinance] which, if approved, would
permit urban chicken keeping. The Commission also directed Staff to work with the
interested public to draft such an ordinance. Ordinance 1767 represents the culmination
of this work (Attachment 1).
Above all, the City Commission endeavors to ensure and enhance the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Bozeman, promote residential harmony amongst the citizens of
84
2
this community while protecting and promoting the wellbeing of all animals within its
jurisdiction. In researching public health risks associated with the keeping of domestic
chickens in an urban environment, Staff found that the risk to public health is minimal
and therefore should not, per se, constitute a rational for denying approval of the
proposed ordinance (Attachments 2 and 3).
Additionally, the Commission seeks to maintain or improve the overall quality of life of
the citizens of Bozeman by affording the opportunity to produce healthy, affordable and
sustainable food sources. If appropriate minimum community standards are considered,
codified and enforced, chickens may provide these opportunities for some in this
community without dramatically or negatively impacting the quality of life for others. As
chickens have not been traditionally kept in town perceived impacts may be greater than
actual impacts. The proposed ordinance attempts to balance the desires and expectations
of the citizens of Bozeman.
Ordinance 1767 [the Urban Chicken Ordinance or UCO] was drafted through a
collaborative effort between City Staff and several interested citizens. The UCO seeks to
establish reasonable minimum standards balancing the desire to keep one’s own chickens
with the reality that raising chickens in an urban setting should not negatively impact the
quality of life of neighbors or others living in the City. For a comparative study of urban
chicken ordinances from 25 municipalities, including a helpful table in Appendix A, see
Attachment 4, Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities.
The following sections of this memo, II – V, set out further details of the proposed
ordinance.
SECTION II
A. Keeping of Chickens lawful
This section recommends setting the maximum number of chickens lawfully permitted
within City limits at fifteen (15) chickens, dependant on lot size and configuration. An
exception to permission to keep up to fifteen (15) chickens is when a chicken or chickens
are determined to be nuisances. A nuisance animal is described in Title 6 – Animals,
6.04.010.N.4 as:
N. [A]ny animal that unreasonably annoys humans, endangers the life or
health of persons or other animals, or substantially interferes with the rights of
citizens, other than their owners, to enjoyment of life or property. The term
"nuisance" shall include, but not be limited to:
4. Any animal that makes disturbing noises including, but not limited
to, continued and repeated howling, barking, whining, crowing or
other utterances causing unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to
neighbors or others in close proximity to the premises where the
animal is kept or harbored;
In terms of enforcement authority for nuisance animals, Title 6 – Animals, 6.04.120
Nuisance Animals Prohibited – Complaints, states:
85
3
It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, keep, or maintain any such nuisance
animal, and it shall be the duty of the Animal Control Officer and all law
enforcement officers to file complaints for all such violations occurring in their
presence. Any person aggrieved by a nuisance animal may file a complaint with the
Animal Control Officer. Where the offense is not committed in the presence of the
Animal Control Officer, the Animal Control Officer shall investigate and issue an
appropriate criminal or civil citation, or request prosecution for the violation through
the City Attorney, or their designee. (Ord. 1764, S 9, 2009; Ord. 1463 S 3, 1998;
Ord. 1446 S 10, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 11, 1981)
Therefore, if the UCO is adopted, chickens may be kept, up to a maximum number of
fifteen (15) and dependant on lot size and configuration, provided they do not constitute a
nuisance as defined by Title 6.
B. Location and Number
As drafted, the UCO contemplates the lawful keeping of chickens on single-household
parcels (single household detached and single household attached), parcels under unitary
ownership with more than one dwelling onsite (duplexes through apartments) and on
residential parcels under common ownership (condominiums) provided the lot size
restrictions are met. To limit the total number of chickens on a parcel of land, the area
used in each permit for parcels with multiple households may not overlap and thus may
be restricted.
Recommended Minimum Lot Size Options:
1) As presently written, any lot must contain a minimum of 5,000 square feet for the
keeping of up to six (6) chickens, for each additional 1,000 square feet of lot size an
additional chicken may be added up to the recommended maximum of fifteen (15)
chickens (Attachments 5 and 6); or
2) If the Commission finds that a minimum of 5,000 square feet for the keeping of up to
six (6) chickens is unnecessarily exclusive of owners of parcels less than 5,000 square
feet, Staff suggests the Commission consider lowering the minimum lot size threshold
to 3,000 square feet and set the maximum number of chickens allowed at four (4)
(Attachments 7 and 8).
It is important to note that while the UCO would allow for the keeping of chickens, it
does not require this activity. Additionally, if adopted the UCO will not override a
condominium or homeowners association’s covenants or other private agreements in
place or modified thereafter which may prohibit the keeping of chickens. Not all
properties may be suited to the keeping of chickens and the proposed permitting and
inspection process is intended to identify and restrict such locations.
C. Specific Standards for Chickens
The standards proposed in the UCO represent a compilation of standards set forth in other
urban chicken ordinances found in municipalities throughout the country. In general,
these minimum standards ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community and the
chickens, as well as providing for the quality of life for neighbors and residents.
86
4
Standards 1 and 2 of the UCO relate to the prohibition of adult roosters and containment
of chickens. Staff recommends that no adult roosters be kept. At approximately three (3)
months of age, it should be clear whether the chicken is a hen or a rooster. At that time,
roosters must be culled from the flock. Chickens cannot be allowed to run at large and
must be confined to the keeper’s property at all times and must remain confined to the
chicken enclosure or coop from sunset to sunrise.
Standards 3 – 9 are concerned with the health and wellbeing of the chickens and set forth
requirements for houses, enclosures, security and sanitation.
Standards 10 -12 address issues related to the quality of life of residents in neighboring
homes and businesses. These standards define minimum setbacks of chicken houses and
enclosures to adjacent inhabited structures and property lines (Attachments 9 and 10).
Additionally, Standards 10 – 12 address noxious odors and loud and/or habitual noise and
prohibit the slaughtering of chickens in the public view.
The standards enumerated in the UCO represent the very least which must be done by a
chicken keeper in order to properly and lawfully keep chickens in the City. If found by
an Animal Control Officer (ACO) that a keeper has failed to meet the standards set forth,
this may constitute grounds for a warning, order to mitigate, permit revocation, citation or
any combination thereof.
D. Permits Required/Inspections
In essence, this section sets forth the permitting, inspection, notification, protest and
appeals processes and procedures. Additionally, Section D contemplates fees associated
with approved permits. If the UCO is approved, Staff recommends returning to the
Commission with a chicken keeping permit fee resolution during the 30 day effective
period. Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, Staff will recommend fees as
follows:
1) A permit for six (6) or fewer chickens would require a one-time fee of $25.00.
Inspection of the permitee’s chicken house and grounds is at the discretion of the
ACO who retains the authority to inspect the chicken house and grounds at any time
and for any reason.
2) A permit for between seven (7) and fifteen (15) chickens would require a one-time
fee of $50.00. Inspection of the permitee’s chicken house and grounds by the ACO is
required.
Staff recommends that urban chicken permit fees are paid one-time only unless the
number of chickens, location, standard or manner in which the chickens are kept is
altered from that which is described in the original permit. The fee recommendation is
based on the cost per hour of wages and benefits of an ACO at the rate of $22.76 per hour
and has not factored additional personnel, administrative materials or equipment costs
associated with processing or enforcing urban chicken permits.
Noticing provisions are included in the proposed UCO and are intended to provide
appropriate notification to neighbors of an applicant’s intention to keep chickens. Staff
recommends no protest provision for keepers of fewer than seven (7) chickens. The
ACO could address neighbors concerns with the keeping of fewer than seven (7)
87
5
chickens under the provisions of the nuisance code. In the event of a protest by two or
more neighbors of the keeping of seven (7) or more chickens, a hearing before the
Commission may be requested as proposed in 6.04.070 E (See E. below).
The issuance of a permit for the keeping of chickens remains at the discretion of the ACO
and permit approval or denial is based on several criteria outlined in 6.04.070 D 1 - 10.
However, permitting decisions made by the ACO may be appealed by the applicant first
to the City Manager and finally to the City Commission in the form of a public hearing, if
necessary.
E. Protest and Hearing
As proposed in the UCO, the occupants, owners, or residents of two or more adjacent
properties protesting the keeping of seven (7) or more chickens are entitled to request a
public hearing before the Commission. If a hearing is held, the Commission may issue a
permit for the keeping of seven (7) or more chickens if the Commission finds:
1) That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size to accommodate such the
keeping of chickens, and all yards, spaces, fences, and enclosures are adequate to
properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity;
2) That the proposed use will have minimal adverse impact on adjacent properties or
residents; and
3) That any conditions stated in the approval are in addition to those required in this
Chapter and are deemed necessary, and shall apply and be followed by the applicant
and the property owner as a condition of approval.
F. Enforcement
Under the proposed UCO, the ACO maintains enforcement authority as defined by Title
6 – Animals. Additionally, Staff recommends that provision 6.04.010, Definitions,
provision 6.04.120 as it relates to nuisance animals, provisions 6.04.130, 6.04.140,
6.04.150, 6.04.170 as they relate to impoundment, redemption and disposition of animals
and provisions 6.04.200 and 6.04.210 as they relate to civil and criminal violations and
penalties apply to the keeping of chickens. The aforementioned sections can be found in
Title 6 – Animals attached hereto (Attachment 11).
SECTION III
Review
Staff recommends that the UCO be reviewed by the Bozeman City Commission on the
second anniversary of its passage to determine if any changes or adaptations are
necessary to more closely adhere to the intent of this ordinance. A one year or three year
review period was discussed by Staff and remains a reasonable alternative to the Staff
recommendation. The Commission may choose to remove any review period and rely on
the public for comment and input on the effectiveness of the provisions, standards and
procedures outlined in the UCO.
88
6
SECTION IV
Amendment to Title 18.80.080 Agricultural Activity
On September 1, 2009 the City’s Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
recommendation by Staff to amend the text of section 18.80.080 of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify the definition of “Agricultural Activity” to
exclude animals regulated by Title 6 – Animals of the Bozeman Municipal Code. After
the Staff presentation, public comment, thoughtful discussion and thorough findings, the
Zoning Commission voted 4 -1 in the affirmative to amend the text as follows, the
additional text is underlined:
18.80.080 Agricultural Activity [AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING
COMMISSION]
The cultivation or tilling of soil for the purpose of producing vegetative materials for sale
or for use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending of animals for
commercial sale or use. Agriculture does not include gardening for personal use, keeping
of house pets or animals as authorized under Title 6, BMC, or landscaping for aesthetic
purposes.
Staff recommends that the Commission take formal action in the manner of a motion and
vote to approve the Zoning Commission’s recommendation to amend the language in
18.80.080 as shown above (see Staff recommendation 3). The Zoning Commission staff
report, draft meeting minutes and resolution are attached hereto (Attachment 12).
The effect of the recommended changes to Titles 6 and 18, as shown in the proposed
UCO, is to allow for the keeping of chickens within all zoning districts of the City.
However, as proposed, the keeping of chickens remains restricted to residences only and
only on residential lots where minimum lot sizes and set-back thresholds are met. This
includes mixed use development. Chickens may be kept in a more intensive manner than
allowed by Ordinance 1767 in the R-S district. This allowance in the R-S district has
been present in the zoning standards for over 25 years.
SECTION V
Transition
Staff recommends that any person or persons presently keeping chickens within the City
be provided ninety (90) days, approximately three (3) months, to come into compliance
with the standards and practices outlined in the UCO. If the thirty-day effective period is
taken into account, person or persons presently keeping chickens within the City would
have approximately four (4) months to come into compliance with the standards and
practices outlined in the UCO.
SECTIONS VI – IX
Sections VI – IX represent standard ordinance provisions and are not discussed in this
memo.
89
7
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the keeping of domestic chickens, if minimum standards are applied
and practiced, constitutes a minimal risk to the public health. Additionally, staff
concludes that the quality of life of the citizens of Bozeman may be enhanced by the
regulated keeping of domestic chickens by affording the opportunity to produce healthy,
affordable and sustainable food without dramatically or negatively impacting the quality
of life for others in the community.
It is important to note that while Ordinance 1767 was drafted through a collaborative
effort with chicken keeping advocates, concerns of opponents to the keeping of domestic
chickens were also considered and efforts made to address those concerns through the
application and enforcement of minimum standards, noticing, permitting, protest and
appeals processes. In drafting the UCO, efforts were made to balance the desire to keep
domestic chickens with the associated impacts on the community.
Staff suggests a chicken keeping “best practices guide” be produced and made available
to anyone seeking permission to keep domestic chickens in the City and remain available
on the City’s website on a webpage dedicated to the practice of urban chicken keeping in
Bozeman (Attachment 13).
Additionally, the InterNeighborhood Council (INC) met for its regular monthly meeting
on September 8, 2009. During this meeting a presentation on the UCO was made by
Staff. The INC, with a quorum present, voted unanimously to recommend approval of
Ordinance 1767 by the Commission (Attachment 14).
Finally, numerous public comments have been received regarding chicken keeping in the
City and are attached hereto (Attachment 15).
FISCAL EFFECTS: A $25 one-time permitting fee is recommended for between one
(1) and six (6) chickens and a $50 one-time permitting fee is recommended for between seven
(7) and fifteen (15) chickens. These fees are unlikely to fully cover the cumulative costs of Staff
time, uniform costs, vehicle use, maintenance or fuel associated with site inspections and
additional administrative costs for processing chicken keeping applications. The balance of the
costs would be absorbed by the responsible department(s). The Animal Control Division of the
Bozeman Police Department and the Treasurer’s Office, part of the Finance Department, are
most directly affected by the approval of Ordinance 1767. As a comparison, the City currently
charges $50 for an annually renewable kennel license.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Report compiled on: September 7, 2009
Attachments:
1) Ordinance 1767;
2) June 16, 2009 Memorandum from Tim Roark, Environmental Health Director, Gallatin
City-County Health Department to the Bozeman City Commission;
3) City and County of San Francisco, Animal Care and Control Bird Flu in Chickens Fact
Sheet;
90
8
4) Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities;
5) Map 1 depicting lot sizes greater than 5,000 square feet;
6) Map 2 depicting lot sizes greater than 5,000 square feet;
7) Map 3 depicting lot sizes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet;
8) Map 4 depicting lot sizes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet;
9) Map 5 depicting setback requirements, at least 5 feet from any property boundary and 20
feet from any inhabited dwelling, except that of the chicken keeper;
10) Map 6 depicting setback requirements, at least 5 feet from any property boundary and 20
feet from any inhabited dwelling, except that of the chicken keeper;
11) Bozeman Municipal Code, Title 6 – Animals;
12) September 1, 2009 Zoning Commission staff report, draft meeting minutes and
resolution;
13) Raising Urban Chickens: Best Practices Guide DRAFT, by Alison Sweeny;
14) September 9, 2009 InterNeighborhood Council Memorandum to the Bozeman City
Commission
15) Public Comment
91
ORDINANCE NO. 1767
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA PROVIDING THAT TITLE 6 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL
CODE BE AMENDED BY ADDING SECTION 6.04.070 REGULATING THE
KEEPING OF DOMESTIC CHICKENS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA; AND AMENDING 18.80.080 DEFINING
AGRICULTURAL USE.
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Bozeman City Commission to provide for and protect the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Bozeman, promote residential harmony and ensure
the well-being of properly maintained domestic chickens through effective regulation; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission acknowledges that having chickens within an
urban environment has the potential to affect the interests of others; and
WHEREAS, certain minimum standards for keeping chickens is necessary to protect the
health, welfare and quality of life of both the animals and citizens of Bozeman; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Bozeman City Commission to provide and maintain, for
the citizens of Bozeman, opportunities for the healthy consumption of locally produced foods
and products; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission acknowledges that the act of food production
on one’s own property may improve the quality of life of its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission acknowledges that the husbandry of an
appropriate number domestic female chickens may provide a sustainable and cost-effective food
source.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana;
Section 1
That the table of contents of chapter 4 of Title 6 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so
that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.070 Keeping of Chickens (Gallus Gallus Domesticus)
1
92
2
Section 2
That the following shall be added to Section 6.04.070 so that said section shall read as follows:
A. Keeping of Chickens Lawful. Subject to the standards in this Chapter, it shall be lawful to
keep of up to fifteen (15) female domestic chickens (hens) per permit holder. Except as
provided in 6.04.010.N.4, chickens kept in accordance with the provisions of this section
are not nuisance animals pursuant to 6.04.120.
B. Location and Number.
1. Chickens may be kept in the following locations, subject to all other standards in
this Chapter:
i. on a single-household parcel(s);
ii. on a parcel(s) under unitary ownership with more than one dwelling on
site; and
iii. on residential parcels under common ownership.
2. The number of chickens authorized per permit shall comply with the following,
subject to all other standards in this Chapter:
i. for the first 5000 square feet of any residential parcel, up to six (6)
chickens;
ii. for each additional 1000 square feet of any residential parcel one
additional hen up to a maximum of fifteen (15); and
iii. for parcels with multiple households the physical area used for
determining the maximum number of allowed hens is exclusive to each
permit and may not overlap. This may restrict the number of permits
issued on a given parcel.
C. Specific Standards for Chickens.
1. No male chickens (roosters) over the age of three months are permitted.
2. No chickens may run at large within the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman.
All chickens must be contained with the permittee’s property boundary.
3. The permittee shall provide the chickens with a covered, predator-proof chicken
house that is thoroughly ventilated, of sufficient size to admit free movement of
the chickens. The chicken house must be adjacent to and provide free access to
the chicken enclosure. Any heat source or electrical facilities installed in a
chicken house must comply with all adopted building and electrical codes of the
City of Bozeman.
93
3
4. The permittee shall provide the chickens with a predator-proof enclosure of
sufficient size to admit free movement of the chickens. Chicken enclosures may
be movable.
5. Chickens shall be secured within the enclosure from sunset to sunrise.
6. Chicken enclosures and houses must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all
times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors.
7. Chickens shall have continuous access to adequate food and water.
8. Stored feed must be kept in a rodent- and predator-proof container.
9. Chickens shall be maintained in a healthy condition. Ill chickens shall either
receive appropriate medical care or be culled.
10. No chicken house shall be located closer than 20 feet to any structure inhabited by
someone other than the chicken owner, custodian, or keeper, and not closer than 5
feet to any property line. Chicken houses may be movable but must comply with
all standards of this section.
11. No chicken shall be kept in a manner so as to create noxious odors or noise of a
loud, persistent and habitual nature.
12. No chickens shall be slaughtered within the public view.
D. Permits Required/Inspections.
1. Prior to the keeping of any chicken(s), a party seeking to keep chickens shall
obtain a permit from the City of Bozeman. A permit fee may be established by
resolution of the City Commissions and may be revised from time to time. Only
one permit shall be issued per household. Issuance of a permit is a discretionary
act.
2. The owner of the chickens shall keep a copy of all signed City approval
documents for inspection upon request by an Animal Control Officer.
3. A permit for chickens under this section does not relieve any party from any
requirement to obtain any other permit or other necessary approvals for any
structure, fence, lighting, heat source, etc. as required by the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
4. A party wishing to keep chickens shall submit an application to keep chickens to
the City of Bozeman Treasurer’s Office. The application shall contain the
following:
94
4
a. A sketch identifying the property boundaries, the location of all structures
on the property and distances between said structures and between the
property boundaries. The sketch must also indicate the location(s) of the
chicken enclosure and chicken house.
b. The name, address, and signed statement of the property owner, if
different from the applicant, consenting to the keeping of the applied for
number of chickens on the property.
c. Whether the number of chickens kept will be between one (1) and six (6),
or between seven (7) and fifteen (15).
d. A description of the enclosure and chicken house, including materials used
and cubic footage(s).
e. A sworn statement that all statements contained in the application are true
and that the permit holder shall keep the chickens in compliance with the
terms of the permit, application and this section.
f. The applicant shall provide each residence adjacent, including those
adjacent across a public right-of-way, an Acknowledgement of
Notification and Request for Hearing form and indicate on said form that
the applicant intends to keep chickens in the manner described in the
application. The applicant shall submit the signed forms and a listing of all
adjacent residents with the application. If a neighbor refuses to sign, the
applicant shall so state on the application. For the keeping of seven or
more chickens, if two or more adjacent residences request a hearing, the
City shall schedule and notice a hearing before the City Commission
pursuant to 6.04.070.E.
g. Where the party seeking to keep chickens is not the fee owner of the
property upon which chickens will be kept, the applicant shall obtain the
property owner’s consent in writing to keep chickens on the property. The
owner’s consent shall be submitted with the permit application or renewal.
For the purposes of this section, when a party seeks to keep chickens on a
property owned as condominium, the consent of the property owner’s
association must be obtained. An officer of the association may sign as the
land owner.
5. For any party wishing to keep seven (7) or more chickens, up to the maximum
number allowed, the party shall have the location inspected by a City of Bozeman
Animal Control Officer prior to the keeping of seven or more chickens. The
Animal Control Officer shall review the enclosure, chicken house, and all matters
related to the keeping of chickens.
95
5
6. If, during any inspection, the Animal Control Officer determines changes are to
be made to the enclosure, chicken house, or to the number of chickens to be kept,
or require mitigation for the impact to adjacent properties, such as fencing or
other screening, the applicant/permit holder shall comply with the order of the
Animal Control officer. A person aggrieved by a decision of the Animal Control
officer may appeal to the City Manager who shall review all applicable
information and issue a decision on the appeal. Appeals from the City Manager’s
decision on an application, permit or order of an Animal Control Officer’s
decision may be made to the City Commission. At the time of final approval by
Animal Control, the officer shall indicate final approval on the permit and keep a
record of final approval.
7. A permit to keep chickens is specific to the permit holder and the location of the
permit. A person wishing to move chickens to a different property shall obtain a
new permit. A new resident of a property who intends to keep chickens shall
obtain a new permit regardless of whether chickens were kept on the property or
continue to be kept on the property.
8. Approval of a permit to keep chickens authorizes the permit holder to keep the
number of chickens in the manner described on the application and permit. Any
increase to the number of chickens to seven (7) or more up to the maximum
number allowed, or a significant change to the manner of keeping said chickens
shall require a new permit.
9. Nothing in this section shall prevent an Animal Control Officer from requiring an
inspection of a property prior to or after issuance of a permit for any number of
chickens including six (6) or less.
10. Changes to the standards contained in this section shall require any permit holder
to comply with any new standard, regulation, or condition and no notice to a
permit holder is required prior to enforcement of any new standard beyond that
required for adoption of a new or revised ordinance.
E. Protest and Hearing.
For the keeping of seven (7) or more chickens, a request by the occupants, owners, or
residents of two or more adjacent properties for the City Commission to conduct a
hearing on the application shall subject the application to a hearing before the City
Commission. Adjacent properties shall include those properties adjacent by a public
right-of-way and include those connected by property corners. If a hearing is held the
Commission may issue a permit if the Commission finds:
96
6
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size to accommodate such the
keeping of chickens, and all yards, spaces, fences, and enclosures are adequate to
properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity;
2. That the proposed use will have minimal adverse impact on adjacent properties or
residents; and
3. That any conditions stated in the approval are in addition to those required in this
Chapter and are deemed necessary, and shall apply and be followed by the
applicant and the property owner as a condition of approval.
F. Enforcement.
Upon receiving a complaint of a possible violation the Animal Control Officer will
investigate and determine if a violation of this section exists. If the Animal Control
Officer determines a violation exists the officer may serve upon the permit holder or the
owner or lessee of the property a written notice of violation and an order to take
corrective action, may issue a warning, or may immediately issue a violation notice. The
notice of violation may be served by leaving the notice in a conspicuous location at the
place of the keeping of the chickens, or in accordance with Section 6.04.210 of this
Chapter. The Animal Control Officer will revisit the owner’s address 10 days or more
after the notice of violation is issued. The provisions of 6.04.010, 6.04.120, 6.04.130,
6.04.140, 6.04.150, 6.04.170, 6.04.200 and 6.04.210 shall apply to the keeping of
chickens.
Section 3
Review
The terms and outcome of this ordinance shall be reviewed by the City Commission upon the
second anniversary of its passage.
Section 4
That Section 18.80.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
18.80.080 Agricultural activity
The cultivation or tilling of soil for the purpose of producing vegetative materials for sale or for
use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending of animals for commercial sale or
use. Agriculture does not include gardening for personal use, keeping of house pets or animals
as authorized under Title 6, BMC, or landscaping for aesthetic purposes.
97
7
Section 5
Transition
Any person presently keeping chickens within the city of Bozeman shall, within 90 days
of the effective date of the ordinance creating this section, comply with the standards contained
in this section, including the requirement to obtain a permit.
Section 6
Repealer
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 7
Savings Provision
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 8
Severability
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 9
Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
98
8
PROVISIONALLY PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana on first reading at a regular session thereof held on the ________ day of _______,
2009.
____________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN
City Clerk
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ______
day of ______, 2009. The effective date of this ordinance is __________________, 2009.
_________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
99
100
101
Residential Urban Chicken Keeping:
An Examination of 25 Cities
KT LaBadie
CRP 580 Spring 2008
University of New Mexico
May 7th 2008
Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens.
Source: http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226
102
2
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 5
Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 6
Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12
Number of Birds Permitted ............................................................................................. 7
Regulation of Roosters.................................................................................................... 8
Permits and Fees............................................................................................................. 8
Enclosure Requirements ................................................................................................. 9
Nuisance Clauses ............................................................................................................ 9
Slaughtering Restrictions.............................................................................................. 10
Distance Restrictions .................................................................................................... 10
Unique Regulations....................................................................................................... 11
Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................... 12
Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14
References ........................................................................................................................ 16
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 17
25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17
Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 18
Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18
Appendix C ...................................................................................................................... 19
Example ordinance........................................................................................................ 19
103
3
Abstract
City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the
task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In
many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens
for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on
their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro-chicken ordinances from 25
cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken
ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common
regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations
are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance.
104
4
Introduction
"I can't say that I would have envisioned chickens as an issue, but I've heard from a lot of people
about them, and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to." 1
- Stacy Rye, Missoula City Councilwoman
It’s happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community
members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about
an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city.
This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has
increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in
participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city
councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison4, and a case is currently pending in Ann
Arbor, Michigan5. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met
with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the
issue.
The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main
reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has
sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of
the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model.
Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in
food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to
reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food
safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard
chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become
1 Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at
http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226
2 Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online
at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_squabble/C8/L8/
3 CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html
4 Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008.
5 Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008.
105
5
increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their
neighborhood.
There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing
Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a
variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source
of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are
opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells,
diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the
two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens
qualify as pets or livestock.
Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that
needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As
the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become
more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with
the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for
chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or
reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do
not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide
some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United
States.
Research Methods
The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is
regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To
achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken
ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage,
and other resources.
Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the
cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see
106
6
Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance
databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were
made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances.
Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and
urban food/gardening community organizations:
Steve Kunselman, City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed
pro-chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008.
Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban
chickens at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/
Dennis Harrison-Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. He was
involved in the adoption of pro-chicken ordinances for Madison.
Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR
These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping,
stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial
in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing
chicken keeping.
Analysis
Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see
chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory
themes that emerged from the set evaluated. These common themes are as follows:
The number of birds permitted per household
The regulation of roosters
Permits and fees required for keeping chickens
Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions
Nuisance clauses related to chickens
Slaughtering restrictions
Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines
The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are
discussed in detail below. The ease and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also
discussed.
107
7
Number of Birds Permitted
Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear (or not specifically stated) regulations on
the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the
remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted, 2 cities
used distance from property lines as a determining factor, and 1 city placed no limit on
the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific
number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common
number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities.
The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average
between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the
household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be
enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities
where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient.
So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home
consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken
keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. “That's
approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot
of food to go through, and excrement to clean up,” he stated in a personal
correspondence.6
The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as
average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good
example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland,
Oregon’s chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household;
however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more (See Appendix A). In this
case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and
those wishing to keep more can apply to do so.
6 Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28,
2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at
http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/
108
8
Regulation of Roosters
The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of
roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was
permitted, 1 city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, 1
allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, 1 allowed a single rooster per household,
and 1 placed no restrictions.
Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain
about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons
people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is
generally accepted to only allow hens. In the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1
rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix
A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing.
This does allow people to have more choice, however it can also increase the costs
associated with enforcing noise complaints.
Permits and Fees
The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in 11 of the cities
evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees,
or both. The fees ranged from $5.00 to $40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual
fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds
exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also
required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture.
Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats,
which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production
however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep
in price, it can exclude lower income populations from keeping chickens by increasing
the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs
for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3
cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything
109
9
above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs,
while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations.
Enclosure Requirements
In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the
allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14
required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to “run at large”. In one case,
the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required.
Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation
can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their
chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators.
However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many
keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are
regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing
chickens to roam in their own yard.
Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to
lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for
eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design
needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away
from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are
generally not subject to this type of regulation.
Nuisance Clauses
There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the
remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the
17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health
concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure.
Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed above, but rather they result
from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur.
110
10
A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear
guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks
and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign, such as
chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to
ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities, chicken
keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly
keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints.
Slaughtering Restrictions
Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19
of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining, 4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2
stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns,
most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in
another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to
chickens.
Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may
wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers, Arkansas for example, only allows the
slaughtering to take place inside (Appendix C), which could help prevent neighbor
complaints about the process. Allowing for slaughtering however, may also have its
benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs.
Distance Restrictions
Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop
and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no
restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance
restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required
from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet,
while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet.
If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into
consideration. For example, Spokane, WA has a property line distance restriction of 90
111
11
feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards.
This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The
lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those
with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines)
are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition
to the chicken keepers property.
Unique Regulations
All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes, but
there were also some unique regulations that one (or a few) cities had related to
residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows:
Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers
Pro-chicken regulations are on a 1-year trial basis with only a set
number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation.
For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, 1
additional chicken may be added to the property.
The allowance of chickens in multi-family zoned areas (allowance in
single family zoning is most common)
Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of
pathogens and waste.
Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured
Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure
The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as
pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for
chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending
the right to keep chickens to those living in multi-family dwelling units or allowing more
birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is
on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential
chicken keeping after a certain time frame.
112
12
Locating and Understanding the Ordinances
Of the 25 pro-chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases,
pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken
ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple
sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find
ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance.
The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web
pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening
organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that
of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix C). Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible
directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated
and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens
within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non-
compliance.
Findings and Recommendations
“Issues such as rodent control are a real concern and the ordinance can have a positive influence
on keeping an already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is”.
- Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR7
The original question for this paper was “What is a good urban chicken ordinance?” This
was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those
that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the
analysis however, the question was changed to “What are the good components and
considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?” There is no
superior “one size fits all” ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different
physical, environmental, social, and political needs.
Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro-chicken
ordinance should be built upon the following considerations:
7 Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on
April 8, 2008.
113
13
It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some
stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise
It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower
incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller
property sizes
It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers
the right to choose their own coop design and building materials
It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process
to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of , and is supported by the
community
It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable
urban environment
It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily
accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce
violations.
The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that
each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics
however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can
provide insight into the best possible choices.
The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices
that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of
chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited
chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social
creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would be left. Two
chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand,
allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing
for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average
allowances found (not the most extremes) are the best choices of an example regulation
for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance.
In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which
can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for
nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies.
114
14
Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees
for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others
no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you
have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit
chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without
added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people
choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken
keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing
citizens to keep chickens.
In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does
provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of
chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down
to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is
going to adopt a pro-chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the
keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and
changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if
the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can
then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases, cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as
that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few
complaints or nuisances, those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically
to the needs of the city and its residents.
Conclusions
"It seems that if we want to be a town that does its part for sustainability, this is something we
ought to consider. I think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward
more sustainable food practices." - Mayor John Engen, Missoula, MT 8
Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and
allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not
8 Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at
http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226
115
15
only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but
they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By
forming a just and well thought out pro-chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the
right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups.
With that said, city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a
“how” rather than a “yes” or “no”, as a growing list of pro-chicken cities across the
nation shows that it can be done successfully.
116
16
References
(References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B)
CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html
Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on
April 8, 2008.
Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at
http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/
Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April
29, 2008.
Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence
on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at
http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/
Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal
Correspondence on April 8, 2008.
Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens.
Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_
squabble/C8/L8/
Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available
online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226
117
17
Appendix A
25 Ordinances Analyzed
City/State # of birds
permitted
Roosters
allowed
Permit/
permit cost
Enclosure
required
Nuisance
clause
Slaughter
permitted
Property line
restrictions
Details or unique
regulations
Los Angeles,
CA
unclear only if 100
ft from
neighbors
unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 ft from owners
home, 35 ft from
neighbors
Rogers, AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 ft from
neighbors house
Keywest, FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can’t use droppings as
fertilizer, feed must be
stored in rat proof
containers
Topeka, KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from
neighbors house
South
Portland, ME
6 No $25/yr Yes,
building
permit
required
Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till
November 2008, only
20 permits issued till
yearly evaluation
Madison, WI 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 ft from
neighbors house
New York,
NY
No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No
Albuquerque,
NM
15 1 per
household
None No Yes Yes No
Portland, OR 3 without
permit
unclear $31 one time
fee for 4 +
Yes Yes unclear unclear
Seattle, WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 ft from property
line
1 additional chicken per
1,000 sq ft of property
above minimum
Spokane, WA 1 per
2,000 sq ft
of land
unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 ft from property
line
Chickens allowed in
multi-family zoned areas
San Antonio,
TX
property
line
dependent
unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum
from another
dwelling
5 birds allowed 20 ft
from home, 12 birds at
50 ft, 50 birds at 150 ft
Honolulu, HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear
Oakland, CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum
from another
dwelling
St. Louis, MO 4 max.
without
permit
unclear $40 permit
for more than
4 birds
unclear unclear unclear unclear
San Diego,
CA
25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 ft from
neighbors house
Feed must be stored in
rat proof container
San Jose, CA dependent
on coop to
property
line
only
roosters <
4 months
old
permit
needed for 6
or more birds
Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to
50 ft, determines
# of birds
<15 ft = 0 birds allowed,
15 to 20 ft = 4 birds, etc,
up to 50 ft = 25 birds
Austin, TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 ft from
neighbors house
Memphis, TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in
rat proof container
Ft. Worth, TX based on
lot size
unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from
neighbors house
<1/2 acre = 12 birds,
>1/2 acre = 25 birds
Baltimore,
MD
4 unclear Must register
with animal
control and
Dept of Ag.
Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from
neighbors house
Coops must be mobile
to prevent waste build
up, minimum 2 sq
ft/bird,
Charlotte, NC based on
lot size
unclear $40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from property
line
minimum 4 sq. ft/bird,
no more than 20/acre
Missoula, MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 ft from
neighbors house
Feed must be stored in
rat proof container
Boise, ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear
San
Francisco,
CA
4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door
or window of
residence
118
18
Appendix B
Sources for 25 Ordinances
City/State Source for Ordinance
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services.
http://www.laanimalservices.org/permitbook.pdf
Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100
http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp
Keywest, FL Part 2, Title 5 Section 62
www.keywestchickens.com/city
Topeka, KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com
South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3
http://www.southportland.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={93286E1E-9FF8-
40D2-AC30-8840DEB23A29}
Madison, WI http://www.madcitychickens.com/ and www.municode.com
New York, NY Just Food’s City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online
at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/
Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9, article 2, part 4, § 9-2-4-3, c-3
http://www.amlegal.com/albuquerque_nm/
Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015
http://www.portlandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid_13497
Seattle, WA Ordinance 122311 section 23
www.seattleurbanfarmco.com/chickens
Spokane, WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 17C.310.100
http://www.spokanecity.org/services/documents/smc/?Section=17C.310.100
San Antonio, TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals
www.sanantonio.gov/animalcare/healthcode.asp
Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5
www.honolulu.gov/refs/roh
Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320
www.oaklandanimalservices.org
St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7
www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t102001.htm
San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/municodechapter04/ch04art02division07.pdf
San Jose, CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, &150
www.sanjoseanimals.com/ordinances/sjmc7.04.htm
Austin, TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2
www.amlegal.com/Austin-nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin
Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com
Ft. Worth, TX Section 11A-22a www.municode.com
Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106; Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3
www.baltimorehealth.org/press/2007_02_02_AnimalRegs.pdf
Charlotte, NC Section 3-102
http://www.charmeck.org/departments/animal+control/local+ordinances/permits/htm
and municode.com
Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12
ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2007/2007-12-
17/Chicken_Ordinance.pdf
Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14
http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/citycode/0614.pdf and
http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html
San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37
http://sfgov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id=5476
119
19
Appendix C
Example ordinance
Rogers, AK
ORDINANCE NO. 06- 100
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONTAINMENT OF FOWL AND OTHER
ANIMALS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROGERS; AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROGERS,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any domesticated fowl to
run at large within the corporate limits of the city. It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks
of any size in A-I zones of the city, so long as they are confined.
Section 2: It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or allow any fowl within the
corporate limits of the city in all other zones, except A-I, under the following terms and
conditions:
a. No more than four (4) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling. No birds
shall be allowed in multi-family complexes, including duplexes.
b. No roosters shall be allowed.
c. There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds.
d. All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure enclosure constructed at least two feet
above the surface of the ground.
e. Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence.
f. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be
cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors.
g. Persons wishing to keep fowl within the city must obtain a permit from the Office of
the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and
must pay a $5.00 annual fee.
Section 3: The above Section 2 is not intended to apply to the 'ducks and geese in Lake
Atalanta Park, nor to indoor birds kept as pets, such as, but not limited to, parrots or
parakeets, nor to the lawful transportation of fowl through the corporate limits of the city.
Neither shall it apply to poultry kept in areas of the City which are zoned A-I.
Section 4: Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be "grandfathered" or permitted to
remain after the effective date of this Ordinance; however, owners of the poultry will
have 90 days from the effective date to come into compliance with this ordinance.
Source: http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
ORDINANCE NO 1764
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
PROVIDING THAT THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BE AMENDED BY REVISING
SECTIONS 6.04.010, 6.04.020, 6.04.030, 6.04.040, 6.04.050, 6.04.070, 6.04.080, 6.04.090, 6.04.100,
6.04.110, 6.04.120, 6.04.130, 6.04.140, 6.04.150, 6.04.160, 6.04.170, 6.04.180, 6.04.200 AND 6.04.210
PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, LICENSE
ISSUANCE AND REGISTER CONDITIONS, RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT,
IDENTIFICATION OF RESTRAINT-FREE AND DOG-FREE AREAS, NUISANCE ANIMAL
ENFORCEMENT, IMPOUNDMENT PROCEDURES, CLEANING UP AFTER ANIMALS, ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER AUTHORITY, TYPE OF OFFENSES AND PENALTY FOR OFFENSES,
ADDING PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE USE OF CIVIL CITATIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ALL SECTIONS IN THIS CHAPTER, AND REPEALING PROVISIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY COVERED BY A SEPARATE CHAPTER IN BMC.
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to provide for and protect the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Bozeman, promote residential harmony and ensure the well-being of cats, dogs
and other animals through effective animal regulations and;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to allow for animal control officers and police
officers to provide necessary enforcement through the use of criminal citations and related prosecution for
more egregious, habitual or serious offenses and the use of civil citations and related civil penalties for
less serious offenses, but allow for the exercise of such discretion to be held at the time of the offense
and;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to establish fines and penalties commensurate with
the nature of the offense and which serve to recognize the efforts of responsible citizens to take proper
care, and;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to provide adequate, safe, and identifiable locations
for citizens to allow accompanied dogs to exercise without restraint without infringing on the rights of
other community residents and visitors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman
Montana:
Section 1
That table of contents of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
Chapter 6.04
ANIMAL CONTROL
Sections:
6.04.010 Definitions
6.04.020 Licenses - Requirements Generally - Fee Expiration
6.04.030 Licenses - Exemptions from Chapter Applicability
6.04.040 Licenses - Issuance and Register Conditions - Tag Requirements.
6.04.050 Kennel Licensing Requirements - Limit on Number of Animals Kept
6.04.060 Keeping of Exotic or Wild Animals
1
131
6.04.070 Keeping of Chickens (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) (Reserved)
6.04.080 Restraint and Confinement
6.04.090 Rabies Prevention Requirements - Tag - Penalty for Violation
6.04.100 Quarantine for Dogs Biting Persons
6.04.110 Rabies Prevention Requirements - Physician and Veterinarian Responsibilities
6.04.120 Nuisance Animals Prohibited - Complaints
6.04.130 Impoundment - Authorized When - Records Required
6.04.140 Impoundment - Notice to Owner - Redemption Conditions
6.04.150 Impoundment - Disposition of Unredeemed Animals
6.04.160 Cleaning up after Animals
6.04.170 Enforcement - Animal Control Officer Authority
6.04.180 Prosecution for Chapter Violations - Liability of Owners - Permit Transfers
6.04.190 Severability
6.04.200 Type of Offenses
6.04.210 Enforcement - Penalty for Violations
Section 2
That 6.04.010 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.010 Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms shall have
the meaning ascribed to each:
A. "Animal" means any live creature, both domestic and wild, except humans.
"Animal" includes fowl, fish, and reptiles.
B. "Animal Control Officer" means all peace officers as that term is defined in Montana
state law as well as all duly appointed animal control officers, animal control
supervisors appointed by the City to carry out and enforce this chapter, or other officials
designated by the Director of Public Safety, or their designee.
C. "Animal shelter" means any premises provided by, or contracted via, the City and
maintained by the Animal Shelter Director, or their designee for
impounding and caring for dogs and other animals, or any facility which contracts with
the City to provide such services.
D. "Animal Shelter Director" means the operator of the City animal shelter or
any operator of a facility contracting with the City to provide the services of an animal
shelter.
E. "At large" means that an animal is off the premises of the owner, keeper, or responsible
custodian of the animal and not on a leash or confined within a kennel, cage, or motor
vehicle, or otherwise under the immediate control of a person physically capable of
restraining the animal.
F. "Cruelty" means any act or omission whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or
death of an animal is caused or permitted.
G. "Dangerous" or "vicious" animal means any animal that attacks, bites, or injures human
beings, domestic animals, or livestock without adequate provocation, or which, because
of its nature, temperament, training, or other characteristics, would constitute an
unreasonable danger to human life or property if not kept, maintained, or confined in a
safe and secure manner. Any animal that, without provocation, has aggressively bitten
or caused any physical injury to any person shall be prima facie presumed vicious or
dangerous.
H. “Department” means the Police Department of the City of Bozeman, Montana.
I. "Exotic animal" means any wild or other animal which is not tame by nature and
2
132
includes, but is not limited to, raccoon, fox, skunk, beaver, otter, wolf, wolf hybrid, bear,
raptor, alligator, crocodile, poisonous snake, monkey, swine, member of the feline
species other than domestic cat (felis domesticus), member of the canine species other
than domestic dog (canis familiaris), or any other animal that would require a standard of
care and control greater than that required for customary household pets sold by pet shops
or domestic farm animals. The term "exotic animal" does not include farm animals,
rodents, domesticated ferret, and captive-bred species of fish and common cage birds.
J. "Kennel" means any premises wherein any person engages in the business of boarding,
breeding, buying, letting for hire, training for a fee, or selling dogs, cats, or other animals
(excluding licensed pet shops). The term "kennel" shall also include any noncommercial
establishment or place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept, whether for
breeding or otherwise.
K. “Leash” means a line, chain or lead used to control or restrain an animal and does not
include an electronic leash or shock collar.
L. “Municipal Infraction” means a civil offense punishable by a civil penalty as listed in this
ordinance of not more than $300 for each violation.
M. "Muzzle" means a humane device, securely fastened over the mouth of an animal,
which prevents the animal from biting.
N. "Nuisance" means any animal that unreasonably annoys humans, endangers the life or
health of persons or other animals, or substantially interferes with the rights of citizens,
other than their owners, to enjoyment of life or property. The term "nuisance" shall
include, but not be limited to:
1. any animal that is repeatedly (more than two separate occurrences) found
running at large;
2. Any dog in any section of a park or public recreation area which is not
controlled by a leash or similar physical restraint, except in such parks or public
areas designated exempt pursuant to Section 6.04.070(F);
3. Any animal that damages, soils, defiles, or defecates on any property other
than that of its owner;
4. Any animal that makes disturbing noises including, but not limited to,
continued and repeated howling, barking, whining, crowing or other utterances
causing unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to neighbors or others in close
proximity to the premises where the animal is kept or harbored;
5. Any animal in heat that is not confined so as to prevent attraction or contact
with other animals;
6. Any animal, whether or not on the property of its owner, that without
provocation, molests, attacks, or otherwise interferes with the freedom of
movement of persons in a public right‐of.way;
7. Any animal that chases motor vehicles in a public right‐of‐way;
8. Any animal that attacks domestic animals;
9. Any animal that causes unsanitary conditions in enclosures or surroundings
where the animal is kept or harbored;
10. Any animal that is offensive or dangerous to the public health, safety, or
welfare by virtue of the number of animals maintained at a single residence or
the inadequacy of the facilities.
O.. "Owner" means any person, group of persons, or corporation having temporary or
permanent custody of, sheltering or having charge of, harboring, exercising control over,
or having property rights to, any animal covered by this chapter.
3
133
P. "Under restraint" means that an animal is secured by a leash not to exceed six feet in
length or securely enclosed within the real property limits of the owner's premises.
(Ord. 1764, S 2, 2009, Ord. 1463 S 1,1998; Ord. 1446 S 1, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 1,1981)
6.04.020 Dog and Cat Licenses - Requirements Generally - Fee – Expiration
A. Every person, other than owners or keepers of commercial kennels, owning, keeping, or
harboring any dog over six months of age within the corporate limits of Bozeman shall
cause such dog to be registered, numbered, and licensed annually with the Department
of Finance of the City and shall pay for such license an amount as set by resolution of
the City Commission. Any owner claiming that his dog has been spayed or neutered
must show to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that such operation has been
performed. No license shall be issued without proof of vaccination against
rabies disease. First-time licenses issued after July 1st shall be prorated on a semiannual
basis. All licenses shall expire on December 31st of the year of issuance. A late licensing
fee will be assessed upon all renewal licenses issued after February 15th of the current
license year pursuant to the fee schedule.
B. Every person owning, keeping, or harboring any cat over six months of age within the
corporate limits shall cause such cat to be registered and numbered annually with the
Department of Finance of the City and shall pay for such registration an amount as set
by resolution of the City Commission. Any owner claiming that his cat has been spayed
or neutered must show to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that such operation
has been performed. No license of any type shall be issued without proof of vaccination
against rabies disease. First time registrations issued after July 1st shall be prorated on a
semi-annual basis. All registrations shall expire on December 31st of the year of
issuance. A late registration fee will be assessed upon all renewal registrations issued
after February 15th of the current calendar year pursuant to the fee schedule. (Ord.
1446 S 2, 1997; Ord. 1272 S 1, 1988; Ord. 1085 S 2, 1981)
6.04.030 Dog and Cat Licenses - Exemptions from Chapter Applicability
The licensing requirements of this chapter shall not apply to any dog or cat belonging to a
nonresident of the City and kept within the City for not longer than fifteen days, provided all such
dogs or cats of nonresidents shall at the time of entry into the City be properly vaccinated against
rabies and, while kept within the City, meet all other requirements of this chapter. Any owner claiming
any of these exemptions has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the licensing
authority that the dog or cat in question is entitled to such exemption.
(Ord. 1446 S 3, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 4,1981)
Section 3
That 6.04.040 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.040 Licenses - Issuance and Register Conditions - Tag Requirements
On payment to the City of the amount of the license fee, the licensing authority shall issue a
license to the person applying for the same, provided that all other requirements have been met, and shall
provide and furnish with each license a durable tag upon which shall be stamped or engraved the
registration number of the dog or cat and the year registered. The City shall keep suitable records in
which shall be recorded the date and number of such license and the name and address of the person to
whom issued. Whenever the dog or cat are allowed in a public place, every owner of a dog or cat within
the City shall place and keep around the neck of each dog or cat owned a collar or harness to which shall
be securely fastened the license tag issued by the City and to which shall also be attached a tag showing
4
134
that the dog or cat has been vaccinated for rabies. In the event that a dog or cat tag is lost or destroyed, a
duplicate shall be issued for the current year, upon the payment of a fee for such duplicate pursuant to the
fee schedule. No person shall use, for any dog or cat, a license receipt or license tag issued for another
dog or cat. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove from the neck of any dog or cat the license tag
issued pursuant to this section without the dog or cat owner’s permission or alter such tag in any manner.
(Ord. 1764 S 3, 2009; Ord. 1446 S 4, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 3, 1981)
Section 4
That 6.04.050 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.050 Kennel licensing requirements - Limit on number of cats and dogs kept
A. It is unlawful for any person, group of persons in the same dwelling, or family, to keep,
harbor, maintain or knowingly permit within the City of Bozeman (the City) more than
two each of cats or dogs, over six months of age, without first having obtained a kennel
license from the City as herein provided. This section shall not apply to licensed
veterinarian hospitals or animal shelters, but it is intended to apply to keeping or
maintaining kennels where cats and dogs are kept for breeding, sale, sporting purposes,
boarding, or for the enjoyment of the household. Any person keeping or maintaining a
kennel shall make application to the City for said kennel license, Kennel licenses, or the
revocation thereof, shall be authorized or denied at the discretion of the Director of
Public Safety, or their designee.
B. Kennel Licensing Procedure
1. All applications for a kennel license, including applications for renewal or
reinstatement, shall be reviewed by the Director of Public Safety, or their
designee, who shall investigate the premises of the proposed kennel and make a
findings, as set forth herein, regarding said application.
2. All kennel licenses shall be for a designated purpose, and a specific number and
type of cats and dogs. Licenses shall not be transferable from one person to
another person or place.
3. New kennel licenses shall only be issued after the Director of Public Safety,
or their designee, after appropriate inspection of the applicant’s proposed
kennel and other appropriate investigation, approves the application. In addition,
written notice of a pending kennel license application shall be provided by the
applicant to all owners of real property within two hundred feet of the site in
question, including the property owner if the site in question is not owned by the
applicant, within fifteen (15) days of the application date and prior to final
application approval by the Director of Public Safety, or their designee.
The notice(s), on forms provided by the City, shall specify the name and address
of the applicant, the name and address of the owner of record of the property, a
brief statement of the nature of the kennel license application, including the
number and type of cats or dogs proposed in the application and reference to the
procedures described herein. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide notice to
the City Liaison: staff liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood
associations. Applicant’s failure to properly complete and deliver all notice forms
may constitute cause to deny the application or revoke the kennel license.
4. The Director of Public Safety, or their designee, for approving a kennel
license, shall find:
(a) That all animals listed on the kennel license application possess current
City of Bozeman pet licenses;
5
135
(b) That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to
accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, fences and enclosures are
adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the
vicinity;
(c) That the proposed use will have no adverse affect on abutting properties
or residents within the affected area; and
(d) That any conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary, and
shall apply and be followed by the applicant and the property owner as a
condition of approval.
5. Upon granting a kennel license, the Director of Public Safety, or their
designee, may thereafter inspect the premises to insure compliance with this
chapter and insure the health and welfare of the animals.
6. A kennel license holder shall notify the Director of Public Safety, or their designee,
of any change in the operations which may affect the license and shall keep the
Director of Public Safety, or their designee, apprised of any change in name, use,
or location of said kennel, including, but not limited to, changes in animals and
numbers of either cats or dogs listed on the original kennel license Application.
C. The kennel license fee shall be in an amount as set by Resolution of the City Commission,
and the license shall expire on the thirty-first (31) day of December of each year, unless
sooner revoked. License fees shall be reduced by 50% if application is made, and
subsequently approved, between July 1 and December 31. The kennel license application
fee is non-refundable.
D. Upon complaint being made to the Director of Public Safety, or their designee, that a
licensed kennel is being operated in an improper manner, after finding the kennel was
operated improperly, as a nuisance, or a condition, or conditions, existed that would
preclude the issuance of a license, the Director of Public Safety, or their designee, may
revoke the license of such kennel, after a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours notice to the
licensee. The licensee may, at the discretion of the Director of Public Safety, or their
designee, be provided up to fifteen (15) days to mitigate an offending condition and thus
have the license reinstated. Reinstatement findings by the Director of Public Safety, or
their designee, shall be made only after conduction of a subsequent site inspection and
report stating that each offending condition of the kennel in question was satisfactorily
corrected and the kennel complies with conditions set forth in this chapter.
E. Upon annual re-application for a kennel license renewal, an inspection of the premises, in
accordance with Section B of this chapter, may be waived unless conditions listed in
Section D of this chapter are found to exist.
F. Kennel License Application and Revocation Appeals. Decision(s) by the Director of
Public Safety, or their designee, to deny or approve a kennel license application,
revoke an existing kennel license or reinstate a revoked kennel license may be appealed
to the City Commission. A written request for an appeal hearing before the City
Commission shall be submitted to the Director of Public Safety, or their designee. Any
appeal of a kennel license application approval or denial, or appeal of an existing kennel
license revocation or reinstatement decision(s) by the Director of Public Safety, or their
designee, shall be in writing wherein the Appellant shall set forth the specific provision(s)
of the decision(s) being appealed. Written notice of an appeal of a kennel license
application approval or denial or existing kennel license revocation or reinstatement,
including specific provision(s) of the decision(s) being appealed and the date, time and
location of the subsequent City Commission appeal hearing, shall be provided by the
applicant, to all owners of real property within two hundred feet of the site in question,
including the property owner if the site in question is not owned by the applicant, within
fifteen (15) days past the appeal submittal date and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
6
136
scheduled hearing. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide notice of appeal to the City
Liaison: staff liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood associations.
Applicant’s failure to properly complete and deliver all appeal notice forms may constitute
cause to deny the appeal. Upon review of an appeal, the City Commission shall have the
authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the findings of Director of Public Safety, or their
designee. Commission affirmation, modification or reversal of a decision made by the
Director of Public Safety, or their designee, shall be final and binding. (Ord. 1764, S 4,
2009; Ord. 1754, S 1, 2009)
6.04.060 Keeping of Exotic or Wild Animals
A. It is unlawful for anyone to own, harbor, keep, or permit at large any exotic animal
without the written permission of the City Commission. Such permission shall be given
only if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that the animal will not
constitute a threat to public health or safety.
B. Any person that owns, keeps, or harbors an exotic animal shall make application to
the City Commission for a special license in the manner provided in Section
6.04.050 and said license shall only be issued according to procedures and criteria
specified therein. Such applicant must provide notice of intent to maintain an exotic
or wild animal to all neighbors and include specific information about the nature of
the animal.
C. The Commission shall, in addition to all other conditions, impose
appropriate requirements for proposed enclosures to house or transport the animal(s).
The housing enclosure must be constructed according to applicable zoning codes and
must have the proper permits. Each housing enclosure where an exotic or wild
animal is to be kept must be periodically inspected by the Animal Control Officer
and the Health Board or comparable designee. Each housing enclosure must
provide an adequate exercise area and sleeping quarters. Proper temperature
control and ventilation for the particular species must be provided in both areas.
Each housing enclosure must be kept locked and designed so that no one can enter
or place appendages in the enclosure. Each housing enclosure must be
constructed so as to prevent the animal from escaping. Each housing enclosure
must be kept in good repair to prevent both escape and injury to the wild animal.
Each housing enclosure must have a water container which is secured so as to
prevent its being overturned. Each housing enclosure must be disinfected daily.
Surfaces must be of an impervious material to allow for disinfecting.
D. Exemptions. The standards set out in this section for keeping exotic or wild animals
do not apply to:
1. Any zoological garden accredited by the American Association of
Zoological Parks and Aquariums;
2. Appropriately licensed theatrical exhibits or circuses;
3. Federally licensed research institutions;
4. Any government agency or its employees who use the wild animals for an
agency related education, propagation, or behavior program;
5. Anyone holding a valid rehabilitation permit from the Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, but such exception is granted only for animals
which are in rehabilitation and are scheduled to be released to the wild.
Nothing herein shall be construed to allow the keeping of any wild animal
expressly prohibited by state statute.
E. The annual permit fee for keeping each exotic or wild animal shall be set by
resolution. A separate wild animal permit is required for each animal kept as
7
137
defined herein. All permits granted under this chapter shall be due and payable
annually on the first business day of January. All wild animal permits issued under
the provisions of this chapter shall expire on December 31st of each year. If the
permit fee provided for in Section 6.20.140 is not paid on or before February 15th
of the current calendar year, a fifty-dollar late registration fee shall be imposed. If
application for a renewal permit is submitted after February 15th, the application will
be considered a new application and subject to all the requirements for a new
application. (Ord. 1446 S 6, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 6, 1981)
6.04.070 Keeping of Chickens (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) (Reserved)
Section 5
That 6.04.070 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be renumbered and is amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
6.04.080 Restraint and Confinement.
A. It is unlawful for the owner of any animal to fail to keep such animal under restraint
or to permit such animal to run at large upon the streets and public ways of the City.
B. Any dog, while on a street, sidewalk, public way, or in a park or other public space,
other than areas as designated pursuant to Subsection G of this section, or upon
any private property without the consent of the property owner, shall be secured by
a leash or chain of sufficient tensile strength to restrain the particular dog, such
leash or chain not to exceed six feet in length. However, while actually participating
in instructional obedience training, dogs may be temporarily restrained by a leash
of greater length.
C. No owner or custodian of any animal shall leave such animal unattended while on
a street, sidewalk, public way, or in a park or other public space, or fail to exercise
proper care and control of such animal to prevent the same from becoming a
nuisance.
D. Every female dog or cat, while in heat, shall be kept in a secure enclosed shelter or
area within the real property limits of the owner's premises in such a manner so as
not to come in contact with another animal except for planned breeding.
E. Every dangerous or vicious animal shall be confined by its owner, or authorized
agent of its owner, within a building or secure enclosure, and, whenever off the
premises of its owner, shall be securely muzzled and restrained with a chain having
a minimum tensile strength of three hundred pounds and not more than three feet
in length or caged. Every person harboring a dangerous or vicious animal is
charged with an affirmative duty to confine the animal in such a way that no other
person has access to such animal.
F. DOG-FREE AREAS. No dogs are allowed at the following locations:
1. East Gallatin Recreation Area, beach and lake - defined specifically by
Certificate of Survey 1221 and filed with the clerk and recorders office located
adjacent to Manley road is declared a dog-free area. Dogs are disallowed either
on or off restraint. However, dogs are allowed on adjoining trails to the north
and east of the recreation area.
2. Bronken Fields - defined as recreational fields and adjoining area southwest of
W. Durston Avenue and N. Cottonwood Road.
8
138
3. Softball complex - defined as all recreational fields and adjoining areas located
southeast of Haggerty Lane and Highland Boulevard.
4. Other prohibited areas - within established playgrounds, beaches, ice rinks or
on any fields specifically designed for sports recreation to include softball fields,
soccer fields or related areas. An exception for dogs on a beach is only allowed
if authorized pursuant to Section H of this section.
G. RESTRAINT-FREE AREAS: Through Commission action either prior to, or part
of, Ordinance No. 1764, the following areas are exempt from Subsections A and B of this
section to the extent that in such areas animals may be permitted to run or otherwise
remain unrestrained. This exemption shall not apply to other prohibited areas listed in
Subsection F. of this section or otherwise relieve an owner or custodian of any animal
to prevent the same from becoming a nuisance, as defined in Chapter 6.04.010.
1. Burke Park. That area defined specifically by Certificate of Survey 1778
located adjacent to S. Church Avenue and filed with the Clerk and
Recorder’s office, with all areas specifically signed as restraint-free dog
park use.
2. Canine Beach at the Bozeman Pond. The fenced and enclosed area, to include
the actual beach itself, on the west side of the Bozeman Ponds defined
specifically by Certificate of Survey 1883 and located adjacent to
Huffine Lane and Fowler Lane and filed with the Clerk and Recorder’s
office and specifically signed for use as restraint-free dog park.
3. Highland Park. The fenced and enclosed area located on the southwest side of
the Softball Complex located between Haggerty Lane and Highland
Boulevard that is specifically signed for use as a restraint-free dog park.
4. Snowfill. The fenced and enclosed area on the western edge of the City of
Bozeman Landfill that adjoins McIlhattan Road that is specifically
signed for use as a restraint-free dog park.
5. Gallatin County Regional Park. That portion of the area defined specifically
by Certificate of Survey 2202B and filed with the Clerk and Recorder’s
office, that adjoins West Oak Street and Davis Lane, and that has been
specifically identified by Gallatin County for use in a restraint-free
status.
6. Cooper Park. The park area with full plat and legal description maintained by
City of Bozeman Planning office identified as “PARK ADD, S12, T02S,
R05E” and includes that park surrounded by South 8th Avenue, W. Story
Avenue, W. Koch Street and S. 6th Avenue.
7. Centennial Park. The park area with full plat and legal description maintained
by City of Bozeman Planning office identified as “IMES ADD, BLOCK
38, LOTS 1-24” and is that park adjacent to N. Tracy Avenue, W.
Cottonwood Street and even with N. Tracy Avenue. This restraint-free
exemption shall be only from 5:00 a.m. MST to 9:00 a.m. MST.
H. The City Commission may, by resolution, designate additional areas within the City
which shall be exempt from Subsections A and B of this section in addition to those listed
above in Subsection G of this section. (Ord. 1764 S 5, 2009; Ord. 1463 S 2, 1998; Ord.
1446 S 7, 1997; Ord. 108597, 1981 )
Section 6
9
139
That 6.04.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be renumbered and is amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
6.04.090 Rabies Prevention Requirements - Tag - Penalty for Violation
All dogs and cats over six months of age within the corporate limits of the City shall be
vaccinated against the disease known as "rabies". Upon vaccination of such dog(s) and/or cat(s), the
veterinarian shall issue to the owner or owners of said animal(s) a certificate showing the inoculation
thereof and shall keep a duplicate of such certificate and shall issue a metallic tag showing such
vaccination and the date thereof. The owner shall cause the tag to be attached to a collar or harness on
such animal. The Animal Control Officer or any police officer of the City shall have the right to impound
any dog or cat, at large in the City, not wearing a collar or harness on which is displayed the license tag
and also the vaccination tag. (Ord. 1764, S 6, 2009; Ord. 1446 S 8,1997; Ord. 1085 S 8,1981)
Section 7
That 6.04.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is renumbered so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.100 Quarantine for Dogs Biting Persons
Every animal which bites a person shall be promptly reported to the Animal Control Officer.
Any dog or other animal which has bitten any person may be kept under quarantine under the direction
and authority of the Animal Control Officer. Such quarantine shall be for a period of ten days. If the
owner of the animal has not appeared to claim the animal within ninety-six hours of the beginning of such
quarantine, the animal may be destroyed and examined for rabies. If, during the quarantine period, the
animal is adjudged as having rabies, the animal shall be destroyed and appropriate health authorities
notified. If, after completion of the quarantine period, the animal is adjudged free of rabies, the animal
shall be released to its owner upon written permission of the Animal Control Officer unless otherwise
ordered held pursuant to Section 6.04.130 or 6.04.170. Quarantine and associated costs, including any
costs of destruction, shall be at the owner's expense. No person shall fail or refuse to surrender any animal
for quarantine or destruction as required herein when demand is made by the Animal Control Officer or
any law enforcement officer. (Ord. 1764, S 7, 2009; Ord. 1446 S 9,1997; Ord. 1085 S 9,1981)
Section 8
That 6.04.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is renumbered so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.110 Rabies Prevention Requirements - Physician and Veterinarian
Responsibilities
It shall be the duty of every physician, or other practitioner, to report to the Animal Control
Officer the names and addresses of persons treated for bites inflicted by animals, together with
such other information as will be helpful in rabies control. It shall be the duty of every veterinarian
to report to the Animal Control Officer the diagnosis of any animal observed by him or her as a
rabies suspect. (Ord. 1764, S 8, 2009; Ord. 1085 S 10, 1981)
Section 9
That 6.04.110 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be renumbered and is amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
6.04.120 Nuisance Animals Prohibited - Complaints
It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, keep, or maintain any such nuisance animal, and it
shall be the duty of the Animal Control Officer and all law enforcement officers to file complaints for all
10
140
such violations occurring in their presence. Any person aggrieved by a nuisance animal may file a
complaint with the Animal Control Officer. Where the offense is not committed in the presence of the
Animal Control Officer. The Animal Control Officer shall investigate and issue an appropriate criminal or
civil citation, or request prosecution for the violation through the City Attorney, or their designee. . (Ord.
1764, S 9, 2009; Ord. 1463 S 3, 1998; Ord. 1446 S 10,1997; Ord. 1085 S 11,1981)
Section 10
That 6.04.120 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is renumbered so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.130 Impoundment - Authorized When - Records Required
Unlicensed dogs, or other animals found at large, shall be taken by the Animal Control Officer to
the animal shelter. Any dangerous or vicious dog or animal may be taken up and impounded by the
Animal Control Officer, or any law enforcement officer, by appropriate means, including a tranquilizer
gun if necessary. The animal shelter shall keep a complete register of every dog or other animal
impounded, showing the time and place of taking, the breed, color, sex, and distinguishing marks of such
dog or other animal; and, if licensed, the number of the license and the name and address of the owner. To
the extent possible, male dogs shall be separated from female dogs at the City Animal Shelter and healthy
dogs shall be separated from unhealthy dogs. (Ord 1764 S 10, 2009; Ord.1446 S 11,1997; Ord. 1085 S
12, 1981)
Section 11
That 6.04.130 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be renumbered and amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
6.04.140 Impoundment - Notice to Owner - Redemption Conditions
A. It is the duty of every owner of any dog or other animal to know its whereabouts at all
times. In the event that any dog or other animal is impounded, the owner shall redeem
the same within ninety-six hours, or it shall be subject to disposal by the Animal Shelter
Director, or their designee as provided in Section 6.04.140. The owner of any impounded
dog or other animal may redeem the same within such a period of time by accepting a
citation for violation of any ordinance of the City for which the owner may be properly
charged, and posting any boarding fees to the Animal Shelter in accordance with their
established fee rates. .
B. Any unlicensed dog that is impounded may only be redeemed by the owner procuring a
license, as required by Section 6.04.020, in addition to paying the fees herein
prescribed.
C. If an impounded dog or cat has not been spayed or neutered ("unaltered”) and is
impounded a second time within three years, the dog or cat shall be altered prior to
redemption at the owner's expense.
D. If an impounded animal is suspected or known to have dangerous or vicious
propensities, or accused of being a nuisance animal, it shall not be released or
redeemed unless, or until, a hearing can be held before the Bozeman Municipal
Court to determine under what conditions, if any, such animal shall be released or
redeemed. A complaint may be filed in Bozeman Municipal Court against the person
redeeming any dog or other animal impounded for violation of any provision of this
chapter.
E. To reclaim or redeem any animal impounded on the belief said animal is repeatedly
at large, or is a nuisance, the owner must petition the Bozeman Municipal Court for
a hearing to determine under what conditions, if any, such animal shall be released or
11
141
redeemed. During the hearing, the court will hear evidence to determine whether
the animal should be declared a nuisance animal, to include any recommendations by the
Animal Control Officer. If a determination is made that the animal is repeatedly at large,
or otherwise a nuisance, the owner shall be ordered to comply with provisions or
conditions made by the court, including, but not limited to, ordered confinement of the
animal in a secure enclosure. If the owner does not file such a petition within four days of
the impound, the animal shall become the property of the City and subject to disposal by
the Animal Shelter Director, or their designee as provided in Section 6.04.140.
Impoundment and associated costs, including any costs of destruction, shall be at the
expense of the owner.
F. To reclaim or redeem any animal impounded on the belief said animal is dangerous,
vicious or the subject of abuse, the owner must petition the Bozeman Municipal Court for
a hearing to determine under what conditions, if any, such animal shall be released or
redeemed. During the hearing, the court will hear evidence to determine whether the
animal should be declared dangerous, vicious, or whether the animal was endangered by
cruel treatment, and will take into consideration any recommendations by the Animal
Control Officer regarding the release of the animal. If a determination is made that the
animal is dangerous, vicious, or the animal has been subject to cruel treatment the owner
shall be ordered to comply with provisions or conditions made by the court. If the owner
does not file such a petition within four days of the impound, the animal shall become the
property of the City and subject to disposal by the Animal Shelter Director, or their
designee as provided in Section 6.04.150. Impoundment and associated costs, including
any costs of destruction, shall be at the expense of the owner. The animal shall not be
released to the owner until such hearing is held. (Ord. 1764, S 11, 2009; Ord. 1463 S
4,1998; Ord. 1446 S 12, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 13,1981)
Section 12
That 6.04.140 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be renumbered and is amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
6.04.150 Impoundment - Disposition of Unredeemed Animals
If any impounded dog or other animal is not redeemed within ninety-six hours from the time
it is taken and impounded, the owner thereof shall forfeit all right, title, and interest therein, and
the Animal Shelter Director, or their designee may offer the same for sale or adoption. Sale or adoption,
and such certificate of sale, shall confer title and ownership of the dog or other animal, free of all claims
and interest of the previous owner. In the event that any impounded dog or other animal is not redeemed
by the owner or purchased, it may be disposed of by the Animal Shelter Director, or their designee or
contracting agency in a humane manner. Any dog or other animal suffering from an infectious disease
shall not be released but shall be disposed of, unless the Public Health Officer shall otherwise order. Any
animal deemed dangerous or vicious by the Court may not be sold or adopted without proper disclosure to
the individual purchasing or adopting said animal, to include the nature and extent of the behavior
prompting the declaration of the court. (Ord 1764, S 12, 2009; Ord. 1085 S 14, 1981)
Section 13
That 6.04.150 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be repealed:
Section 14
That 6.04.160 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
12
142
6.04.160 Cleaning up after Animals
Any person owning, keeping, possessing, or harboring any dog, cat, or other animal shall
promptly remove and properly dispose of all feces left by the dog, cat, or animal on any public property
and on any private property not owned by such person or lawfully occupied by such person. (Ord. 1764 S
14, Ord.1446 S 14,1997; Ord. 1085 S 15,1981)
Section 15
That 6.04.170 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.170 Enforcement - Animal Control Officer Authority
For the purpose of discharging the duties imposed by this chapter and enforcing its
provisions, the Animal Control Officer, or any police officer, in addition to any and all other
authority or power, is authorized:
A. To issue a notice to appear under the provisions of Section 46-6-310, MCA, to any
violator of this title;
B. To issue a civil citation in accordance with Bozeman Municipal Code, Chapter 1.24;
C. To inspect premises subject to a kennel license application, chicken license application, a
business license for animal boarding or any premises where the owner or occupant of the
premises has agreed to accept an animal to board or shelter when the animal is the subject
of an investigation, impound, upon issuance of a warrant or in accordance with judicially
recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement;
D. To demand from the occupants of any premises upon, or in which, an animal is kept
or harbored, the exhibition of such animal and the license for such animal;
E. To impound an animal which has attacked a person or other animal, is otherwise
reasonably believed to be dangerous, or pursuant to a cruelty investigation against the
animal in which protection of the animal from further abuse is warranted or in cases
where an animal is loose, injured or in need of care and may order that animal held until
such time as a hearing can be held before the Bozeman Municipal Court to determine
whether, and under what conditions, the animal should be released to the owner, in
accordance with Section 6.04.140.
F. Upon order of the Bozeman Municipal Court, to destroy an animal deemed a
dangerous or vicious animal. (Ord. 1764, S 15, 2009; Ord. 1488 S 1, 1999; Ord. 1446 S
15, 1997; Ord. 1085 S 17, 1981)
Section 16
That 6.04.180 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.180 Enforcement for Chapter Violations - Liability of Owner - Permit Transfers
In all enforcement actions for violations of this chapter, the person who applied for and obtained
the license for the dog or animal in question shall be deemed the person responsible for the violation,
unless there has been a transfer of ownership prior to the violation. Any transfer of ownership
must be evidenced by a transfer permit issued by the City of Bozeman Department of Finance. A transfer
permit may be obtained by furnishing the name and address of the transferee to the City of Bozeman
Department of Finance. Nothing herein shall preclude the filing of separate or additional charges against
any person other than the owner charged with custody of the animal. (Ord. 1764, S 16, 2009; Ord. 1446 S
16, 1997)
Section 17
13
143
That 6.04.200 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.200 Type of Offenses
Violation of any provisions in this chapter may be treated as either criminal violations or
municipal infractions at the discretion of the Animal Control Officer, Director of Public Safety or
Bozeman City Attorney, or their designee(s). This decision may be based on the individual and unique
factors associated with each incident, to include, but not limited to, impacts on risk to public safety,
severity of violations and history or knowledge of previous violations. Offenses listed in this Chapter
involve absolute liability. These offenses shall not require proof of any one of the mental states as
follows: “…mental states of purposely, knowingly or negligently as defined in Section 45-2-101 MCA”.
(Ord. 1764, S 17, 2009; Ord. 1085 S 21,1981)
Section 18
That 6.04.210 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is amended so that such section shall read as follows:
6.04.210 Enforcement - Penalty for Violations
A. Criminal Violations.
1. Criminal Citation: Upon issuance of a Notice to Appear and Complaint as a
criminal violation, or upon issuance of a complaint by the Bozeman City
Attorney’s Office, when such complaint states the criminal penalty, it shall be
deemed a misdemeanor violation of this chapter. A Notice to Appear is deemed
served when handed to the defendant. A summons is deemed served three
business days after the date of issuance.
2. Penalty: Each person convicted of a misdemeanor for a violation of any of the
provisions of this chapter, for which another penalty is not provided, shall
upon conviction be punished according to the following schedule:
a. First Offense: A fine of not less than $100 and not to exceed $200.
However, if the fine is paid within 10 business days of the date of the
Notice to Appear, the summons or warrant of arrest is served on the
defendant, and then $50 of the fine shall be suspended. After the
expiration of the 10 business days, any fine over the minimum shall be
suspended only at the discretion of the Municipal Court Judge or their
designee after the defendant has appeared in court.
b. Second Offense: A fine of not less than $200 and not to exceed $300.
However, if the fine is paid within 10 business days of the date of the
Notice to Appear, the summons or warrant of arrest is served on the
defendant, and then $100 of the fine shall be suspended. After the
expiration of the 10 business days, any fine over the minimum shall be
suspended only at the discretion of the Municipal Court Judge or their
designee after the defendant has appeared in court.
c. Third Offense: A fine of not less than $300 and not to exceed $500.
However, if the fine is paid within 10 business days of the date of the
Notice to Appear, the summons or warrant of arrest is served on the
defendant, and then $100 of the fine shall be suspended. After the
expiration of the 10 business days, any fine over the minimum shall be
suspended only at the discretion of the Municipal Court Judge or their
designee after the defendant has appeared in court.
14
144
3. Court costs: Upon conviction, the court costs, including costs of prosecution, costs of a jury trial,
or costs of a judge pro tempore or any part of the court costs may be assessed against the
defendant at the discretion of the court.
B. Municipal Infractions. If the violation has been deemed to be a municipal infraction,
pursuant to 6.04.020, procedures and penalties shall be followed in accordance with
Bozeman Municipal Code Chapter 1.24 “Municipal Infractions”, unless otherwise
specified differently in this section.
Failure to either pay the penalty provided within ten (10) business days or request a
civil hearing within ten (10) business days from the date the civil citation was served
shall be deemed to be an admittance that the violation occurred and shall authorize
the Municipal Court Judge, or their designee, to enter judgment against the person
served.
1. Civil Citation. A civil citation or notice of municipal infraction shall contain
the following information:
a. Name and address of the defendant, including any identifying
information;
b. Description and section number of the infraction attested to by the
Animal Control Officer issuing the civil citation;
c. Location and time of the infraction;
d. Amount of the civil penalty to be assessed or the alternative relief
sought, or both;
e. The manner, location and time in which the penalty may be paid if
admitting to the infraction;
f. The manner, location and time in which a civil hearing may be
requested if denying the infraction;
g. A notice that a failure to either pay the penalty or request a civil hearing
within ten (10) business days shall be deemed to be an admittance that
the violation occurred and shall authorize the Municipal Court Judge, or
their designee, to enter judgment against the person served.
2. Service. A civil citation may be served on a person who commits a municipal
infraction by any one of the following methods:
a. Personal Service:
b. By certified mail addressed to the defendant at the defendant’s last
known mailing address, return receipt requested; or;
c. By publication, in the manner described in Rule 4D(5) of the Montana
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Court Proceedings. The following procedures shall be followed upon a timely
request for a civil hearing to contest a civil citation.
a. Upon receipt of a written request for a civil hearing, the Department
shall within 10 days notify the person of the date, time and location of
the civil hearing.
b. The civil hearing shall be held before a City of Bozeman Municipal
Court Judge, or their designee.
c. The Court shall ensure the defendant has received a copy of the
complaint and that the defendant understands the complaint. The
15
145
defendant may question all witnesses who appear for the municipality
and produce evidence or witnesses on the defendant’s behalf.
d. The defendant may be represented by counsel of the defendant’s own
choosing and at the defendant’s expense.
e. The civil penalty shall not be assessed if, after a hearing, the Municipal
Court Judge, or their designee, enters a finding of no liability. The
Municipal Court Judge, or their designee, at any civil hearing
under this chapter shall issue an order of judgment stating whether the
person charged with the Municipal Infraction is liable for the Municipal
Infraction; and if liable, the amount of any civil penalty, late penalty, and
actual civil action hearing costs assessed against the person. Upon full
satisfaction of penalties and costs, the department shall file a notice of
full satisfaction with the Municipal Court. A copy of the order of
judgment issued shall be maintained by the City.
f. In a civil hearing the standard of proof must be by clear and convincing
evidence.
g. If the defendant is found to have committed a violation after a civil
hearing or who requests a civil hearing and thereafter fails to appear at
the time and place of the hearing may be held liable for actual hearing
costs in accordance with Montana Code Annotated 25-10-201 together
with all actual costs of service of the notice of the Municipal Infraction
either by mail or personal service. The defendant must pay the civil
penalty, hearing costs and service costs within 15 days from when
judgment is entered.
h. Upon a finding that the defendant committed the violation by the
Municipal Court Judge, or their designee, the decision shall be final,
without right of appeal, in accordance with 25-30-108 Montana Code
Annotated.
4. Penalty. The imposition of civil penalty under this section is not a criminal
conviction and is punishable by a civil penalty.
a. In addition to actual hearing costs or costs of service assessed, a
defendant who admits liability or who is found liable after a civil action
hearing shall pay the following civil penalty:
1) $100 fine, which shall be reduced to $50 if paid within 10
business days from the date the civil citation is served.
2) $100 fine, which shall be reduced to $50 if paid within 10
business days from the date the municipal court judge has issued
an order of judgment on a finding that the defendant is liable.
b. The City Attorney, or their designee, is authorized to file suit or engage
the use of collection services to enforce collection of a civil penalty or
court costs imposed under this chapter. In addition to the amount of the
civil penalty collected, reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs
incurred in enforcing the collection shall be recoverable in that action.
(Ord. 1764, S 18, 2009; Ord. 1446, S 17, 1997;)
Section 19
Repealer
16
146
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances of the City of
Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 20
Savings Provision
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or
proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 21
Severability
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be
adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this
ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof other than the part so decided to be invalid, illegal
or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 22
Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana on first reading at a regular session thereof held on the 10th of August, 2009
____________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN
City Clerk
17
147
18
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the 24th day of
August 2009. The effective date of this ordinance is September 25, 2009.
_________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
148
ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UDO TEXT AMENDMENT FILE NO. #Z-09165
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 1
Item: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Application #Z-09165, to
amend the text of Section 18.80.080 of the Unified Development Ordinance to
modify the definition of ‘Agricultural Activity’ to exclude animals regulated
by Title 6, Animals, Bozeman Municipal Code
Applicant: Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at
7:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, September 14, 2009 at
6:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning and Community
Development
Recommendation: Approval
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed edit is applicable throughout the legal boundaries of the City of Bozeman. This
amendment process does not alter the boundaries of zoning districts.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Bozeman has regulated the keeping of animals within the City limits since its incorporation
in 1883. The specifics of the regulations have changed over time as the view of appropriate requirements
and community character has changed. The City has regulations about animals in two primary locations.
Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, addresses issues of appropriate separation of commerce and
residences, development standards, and procedures. It designates where commercial agricultural
activities may occur. Title 6, Animals, addresses household pets, animal licensing, kennels, and
enforcement as it relates to non-commercial activities. The revisions to Title 6 were prepared after
review of other community’s ordinances relating to chickens, consideration of local Bozeman
conditions, and evaluation of various alternatives.
149
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 2
The definition of ‘agricultural activity’ is contained in Section 18.80.080, BMC. The definition has been
constant for at least the last 27 years that records are readily available. It reads as follows:
18.80.080 Agricultural activity
The cultivation or tilling of soil for the purpose of producing vegetative materials for sale
or for use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending of animals for
commercial sale or use. Agriculture does not include gardening for personal use, keeping
of house pets or landscaping for aesthetic purposes.
Agricultural activities as defined are only allowed within the Residential Suburban (RS) zoning district.
Members of the community have approached the City Commission with a request to be able to keep
chickens on their property which is not zoned as the RS district. As chickens are not a typical house pet
which would be excluded from the definition of agricultural activity, they have been considered to be
restricted to the RS district.
The City Commission has requested that Staff provide to them a suggested program for their
consideration which would accommodate the keeping of chickens. After analysis and discussion, Staff
has concluded that the best location within the Bozeman Municipal Code for regulations regarding the
keeping of chickens is primarily Title 6, Animals. Administration and enforcement of this title is the
responsibility of the Police Department through the Animal Control Officer. The suggested standards are
contained in Ordinance 1767 which is the subject of this staff report.
For the purposes of clarity between the two Titles in the Bozeman Municipal Code, Staff has concluded
that an amendment should be made to Section 18.80.080, BMC. The amendment ensures that there is
not overlap or contradiction between the two Titles. The new text is shown with an underline. The
amendment would read as follows:
18.80.080 Agricultural activity
The cultivation or tilling of soil for the purpose of producing vegetative materials for sale
or for use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending of animals for
commercial sale or use. Agriculture does not include gardening for personal use, keeping
of house pets or animals authorized under Title 6, BMC, or landscaping for aesthetic
purposes.
The effect of the changes in Titles 6 and 18 as shown in Ordinance 1767 is to allow for the keeping of
hens within all zoning districts of the City. Keeping of hens is restricted to residences. The portion of
Ordinance 1767 which amends Title 6 describes the minimum standards for the keeping of chickens,
establishes a process by which to seek approval for keeping chickens, provides for restrictions on the
number of chickens, establishes enforcement procedures, and requires a review of the program in two
years. The purpose of this report is to consider the impacts of the changes as they apply to issues
regulated through the City’s zoning authority.
The draft changes allow keeping hens to occur. They do not require the keeping of hens should an owner
not desire to do so. They do not override the ability of a condominium or homeowner’s association from
prohibiting the keeping of hens through covenants or other private agreements. The number of persons
who will utilize any new opportunity for hens is unknown but is greater than zero. Not all properties will
150
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 3
be suitable for keeping of hens and the permitting process is intended to identify and restrict such
locations. Unsuitable properties may be prohibited from having hens.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The review criteria presented here are for consideration by the Zoning Commission and then for the City
Commission. The review criteria are shown as met with the term ‘yes’, are shown as not met with the
term ‘no’, or are shown as not materially affected with the term ‘neutral’. This report is a summary of
analysis.
Interpretation and application of the Unified Development Ordinance must take into account the
document as a whole. Therefore, the analysis is of the document as a whole as amended by the
suggested text revision. If a substantial change is made then a particular point may be emphasized.
According to Section 18.70.020 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Bozeman Zoning
Commission shall cause to be made an investigation of facts bearing on each UDO text amendment
application. The Zoning Commission must provide necessary information to assure that the action of
each UDO text amendment application is consistent with the intent and purpose of the UDO.
Specifically, the investigation must address the criteria required in Section 76-2-304, Montana Code
Annotated. The State legislature recently amended the criteria of Section 76-2-304. The City has not yet
amended its regulations to match those amendments. Therefore, review against both sets of criteria is
provided. There is much common purpose and language in the new and old criteria. In order to minimize
repetition, where a new and old criteria match in intent they are grouped together. The City’s adopted
criteria are shown in Bold and the State’s newly adopted criteria are shown in Italics.
A. Consistency with the City’s growth policy. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Neutral. The growth policy does not directly address pets or other accessory uses to land. In
general the growth policy supports a diversity of uses when they do not create conflicts or
nuisances to others. Proponents of the change have asserted that urban hens will provide a more
sustainable means of egg and meat production and provide other benefits to a more sustainable
community. The growth policy generally supports efforts to increase sustainability of the
community. See goal LU-4 and objective G-1.4. Sustainability benefits will be dependent on the
number of persons who may participate and how they may raise the animals. Overall effect on
total food consumption in town is expected to be small and specific to individuals.
B. Lessening of congestion in the streets. The effect on motorized and non-motorized
transportation systems.
Neutral. There is not expected to be an increase or decrease in travel which can be attributed to
the change.
C. Securing safety from fire, panic and other dangers. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers.
Yes. The specific provisions of the draft ordinance address issues of public safety. Electrical
extensions are subject to the building code, minimum setbacks from residences and property
lines are established, and requirements for protecting the health of the hens and avoiding vermin
are included. The direct amendment to Section 18.80.080 does not appear to affect this criterion.
151
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 4
D. Promotion of health and the general welfare. Promote public health, public safety, and
general welfare.
Yes. The amendment to Section 18.80.080 does not directly change the authorized uses in a
district. The amendments to Title 6, Animals, contain specific standards designed to address the
protection of public health. The City-County Health Department has provided a written
statement that they do not see a risk to public health from the proposed changes.
The general welfare is a term which can be difficult to define. In this specific case there are
advocates and opponents which disagree on the desirability of having chickens within an urban
area. Each community has differences in the sense of what is “appropriate” in an urban setting.
Each individual finds different elements of housing more or less attractive given their personal
preferences.
The open process of reviewing proposed ordinance changes provides all interests opportunity to
present their most persuasive arguments. The City Commission will ultimately have to decide
which assertions they find most compelling. The draft ordinance has been crafted to include
provisions intended to prevent or minimize the most likely problems. If an individual owner is a
poor steward of their animals there are enforcement procedures and officers to resolve the
problems.
E. Provision of adequate light and air. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The amendment does not affect the provision of adequate light and air. Those elements
of the proposed ordinance which address location and size of coops and enclosures do help
provide open areas and sun access to adjacent properties. These are consistent with existing
requirements for accessory buildings.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Yes. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density. With
these amendments in place, underlying zoning and building regulations would still be in effect to
prevent the overcrowding of land. There are specific thresholds for the area required which limit
the number of hens which may be kept on any parcel. In order to have the maximum number of
15 birds each household would need to have at least 14,000 square feet in the lot. The majority of
lots in Bozeman are smaller than this. If there is more than one household on a lot who wishes to
keep hens the total area available must be considered and may not overlap. This limits the total
number of permits and birds on a given area.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Neutral. The proposed edit does not change standards for density of population.
H. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and
other public requirements. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirement.
152
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 5
Neutral. These amendments do not change standards relating to the adequate provision of water,
sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements.
I. Conserving the value of buildings. Conserving the value of buildings.
Neutral. These amendments address a transitory accessory use. Arguments are advanced that
such accessory uses have ability to increase value by expanding the range of uses of property,
and that adding opportunity to keep animals traditionally considered as livestock detracts from
the urban character of the City and will be a detriment due to odors, noise or other factors. The
diligence in care given to keeping the hens will significantly affect any negative effects.
Therefore, it is hard to quantify either significant benefits or detriment to occur.
J. Reasonable consideration to the character of the district. Character of the district.
Neutral. Considerable public comment was provided to the City Commission regarding whether
or not to even consider allowance for keeping hens. This comment was general in nature and was
not specific to the terms of the draft ordinance which had not yet been drafted.
Advocates assert that keeping hens is not more intrusive than other commonly kept animals such
as dogs. Issues of noise, odor, and potential impact to adjacent owners and residents can and do
occur with cats and dogs.
Opponents assert that livestock, including hens, are not appropriate for an urban environment.
Concerns include odor, noise, and conflict with other animals.
Presently any household may keep two dogs of any size without special city approval. All cats
and dogs are required to be licensed. Three or more dogs or cats can be kept through approval of
a kennel license issued by the City. The draft ordinance contains specific standards which limit
the number of birds allowed; give specific performance standards for shelter and cleaning; and
establishes review, appeal, and enforcement procedures, all for the purpose of addressing
identified concerns.
If a person is persuaded that the standards proposed are adequate, then the character of the
district has been given reasonable consideration. The ordinance is not unchangeable. During the
review process to consider adoption of the ordinance standards such as the number of allowed
hens or required setbacks can change. For example, the number of hens initially allowed may be
reduced.
The intensity of use can vary widely. The range is from no persons with interest in chicken
keeping to universal interest. The potential change in character of the district moves along that
same range. It is unknowable at this time how much interest in keeping hens will develop over
time.
153
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 6
K. Reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses.
Peculiar suitability for particular uses
Neutral. The amendment is not specific to a particular parcel. The determination of whether a
specific lot is suitable for keeping specific will happen through the permitting process
established in Ordinance 1767.
L. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land through the municipality. Encourage the
most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The amendment to Section 18.80.080 would exclude the keeping of certain defined animals
from the definition of agricultural activity. It would expand the possibility of keeping different
types of animals to all areas of the City not presently zoned as RS. It is an option, not a mandate.
The commercial scale of agricultural activity will remain limited to the RS district.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Neutral. The amendment does not affect a development standard or modify the zoning map. The
proposed changes should not be in conflict with any adjacent county parcels. The county parcels
are typically much larger than those in the City and the separation between uses should mitigate
any concerns.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning Staff has reviewed this application for a Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
against the criteria set forth in statute and reflected in the Unified Development Ordinance. Staff’s
analysis finds that this application satisfies the required criteria. Based on the evaluation of said criteria
and findings by the Planning Staff, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested amendment.
Pursuant to Sections 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, the Zoning Commission shall review the
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment application to determine if the proposed zoning
change meets the requirements of the Adopted Growth Policy, state statute, and other adopted state and
local ordinances. The Zoning Commission shall act to recommend approval, approval with
modifications, or denial of the Unified Development Ordinance text amendment. The recommendation
of the Bozeman Zoning Commission will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for
consideration at its public hearing on September 14, 2009. The City Commission will make the final
decision on the application.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment had been received after the public notice was published and prior to when this
report was prepared.
In the case of protest against these changes signed by the owners of 25% or more of either of the
area of the lots included in the proposed change; or those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a
proposed change, such amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-
thirds of the present and voting members of the City Commission.
154
#Z-09165 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 7
ATTACHMENTS
Application
Complete text of proposed amendments
155
MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Peter Harned
Nathan Minnick
JP Pomnichowski
Nick Lieb
Ed Sypinski
City Commission Liaison
Sean Becker
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Brit Fontenot, Recording Secretary Pro Tem
Guests Present:
Brit Fontenot
Andy Knaub
Alison Sweeney
John Gallagher
Rachel Weaver
Richard Weaver
Angela Kociolek
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed this
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2009
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of
July 7, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Vice Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those
voting nay being none.
1
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 1, 2009
156
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09165 – (Section 18.80.080, U.D.O.
Agricultural Activity Definition) A Zone Code Amendment requested by the
applicant, City of Bozeman, requesting to modify the definition of “Agricultural
Activity” in the Unified Development Ordinance for the City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana in association with changes to Title 6, Animals,
B.M.C. (Saunders)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the application and noted Section 4 of Ordinance
1767 is up for discussion and approval by the zoning commission. He stated Section 18.80.080
would be affected by the changes to Title 6. He noted the new language would authorize
animals (chickens) as authorized under Title 6 and suggested the language “or animals [as]
authorized under Title 6, BMC”. He noted there were 13 criteria applied in this review; 9 were
neutral, 4 were satisfied, and none were “unmet”. He added that agricultural operations will not
be affected by the change. He stated chicken keeping would be allowed in all zoning districts
with residences. He added that public input and cooperation had been sought and utilized in the
drafting of the ordinance language and that Staff recommended approval.
Vice Chairperson Minnick asked how the change would relate to HOA covenants. Assistant
Director Saunders responded the covenants would override.
Mr. Becker asked if there were protest criteria. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
protest provision is in statute and repeated in the ordinance. Mr. Becker asked if chickens would
be allowable in other districts such as R-O or HMU. Assistant Director Saunders responded they
would be allowed as long as the ordinance thresholds were met.
Chairperson Pomnichowski noted the Zoning Commission had been tasked with reviewing
changes to zoning maps or codes and the night’s discussion was not about whether she liked
chickens or eggs, but about the 12 criteria the Zoning Commission is tasked with using to
determine if the proposal can be approved. She noted 3 of the criteria gave pause; fire, health,
and general welfare. She noted health and general welfare had been addressed in the Staff
Report. She stated Avian Flu would be a concern and asked what research had been performed.
Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had researched and included a letter in the packet
from the County Health Department. He added educational information would be produced
which will be provided to applicants and noted that Avian Flu outbreaks typically occur in more
concentrated flocks.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked what would happen if someone wanted to sell chickens, eggs
or meat. Assistant Director Saunders responded the ordinance limits the numbers on site to a
maximum of 15 birds. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if, because it would be non
commercial, the use could a finding for a home based business. Assistant Director Saunders
responded that in his opinion, it could not be finding for a home based business as Staff was not
trying to regulate that type of activity.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the proposal would lessen the impact on traffic, etc. and
2
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 1, 2009
157
noted that 14 birds seemed to be bordering on commercial use. Assistant Director Saunders
responded that most keepers of 15 chickens would have them for personal meat and egg
production.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the permitting process that would be required for keeping of
chickens, if a permit granted once would ever be granted again, and if there would be an annual
re-check. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would be a permitting process, there was
currently no annual requirement for a recheck but if there was a material change to keeping then
a re-check may be required. He added the City Commission may consider that in their review.
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the item for public comment.
Alison Sweeny, 503 S. 14th Ave., stated that a small number of hens with neighborhood noticing
requirements and no roosters would be good for the community. She stated hens would be
quieter than many other city sounds. She stated animal control would be involved and
cleanliness had been addressed. She added the Health Department would rather know where the
chickens are located if Avian Flu alerts needed to be dealt with. She stated the keeping of
chickens would have a small impact and large benefits. She noted educational material was
being produced.
Angela Kociolek, 620 N. Tracy Ave., stated she was excited by the chance to raise hens. She
stated she was supportive of the ordinance. She noted several of her friends who raise hens are
hardworking and resourceful and will take pride in the raising of chickens. She added other,
larger cities allowed the keeping of chickens.
John Gallagher, 602 N. 8th Ave., has had chickens for 5 years. He stated production of eggs and
meat fluctuate throughout the year and there will not be an influx of eggs. He noted he cleans
the coop daily which takes about 3 minutes. And noted there was not that much waste.
Richard Weaver, 2434 Spring Creek Drive, stated he has 5 acres in the city and 1/3 acre of the 5
acres was a garden. He stated the waste produced by the chickens will be composted and used
on the garden. He noted there would be more and more micro agricultural operations in the city
and added he was looking forward to when other animals are allowed to contribute to the
community (such as goats for weed eating). He stated he thought it would be a safe ordinance.
A small child (Adora Hamilton?) stated it would be fun to have 6 chickens, open the coop and
see eggs. Six chickens would be fine, but any more than that should be outside of the city. She
added her sister loves to chase the chickens.
Katrina Hamilton – 113 S. 6th Ave., stated some people enjoy chickens as a hobby and added she
was supportive of allowing chickens in Bozeman.
Michael Sweeney, 802 N. 17th Ave., #38, stated he was the head of the CLUC promotion
committee and supports the efforts of the people participating. He stated in 1973 he worked on
Spanish Creek ranch and was lucky to get 3 eggs a day. He stated he was a 5th generation
Gallatin Valley resident and the ordinance would be consistent with the values of the
3
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 1, 2009
158
community.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed the public
comment portion of the meeting and opened the item for Commission discussion.
Mr. Lieb stated he had a hard time seeing how the fire criteria and health criteria would be met
but couldn’t find too many negatives. He stated there were many neutrals which were consistent
with how he felt, but he would vote to support the change as he could see the advantages.
Mr. Harned stated this was a different circumstance than most zoning changes but it would fall
in line and would be a great change in many ways.
Vice Chairperson Minnick stated the character of the district gave him pause but he was
reassured that HOA covenants would remain enforced. He added he felt like the remaining
criteria were in line.
Mr. Sypinski stated he appreciated the thoroughness of the ordinance, but had concerns about the
13 criteria being met. He noted his concerns regarded the appropriate care of the community and
the possibility of conflict and nuisance if this ordinance was adopted. He stated criteria No.1
was not seen by him as neutral but instead a “no”. He added that the City Of Bozeman has
enough trouble enforcing leash laws and added that he did not see how chickens would be
enforced. He stated he was also concerned with conserving the historic values of the buildings
and the most appropriate use of land in the municipality. He stated he would not support the
proposed text amendment.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated some answers had been provided earlier in the meeting. She
addressed compatible uses and noted the City was looking for a blend of uses for consistency
with the Growth Policy. She added the keeping of chickens may lessen traffic in the streets and
knowing the locations of people who keep chickens may ensure public safety in the event of an
Avian Flu outbreak. She suggested Staff keep in touch with the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks as they
do research on Avian Flu using the ducks at the MSU duck pond. She noted the greatest risk to
the community was currently H1N1 (Swine Flu) but the H5 (Avian Flu) would be something to
watch. She stated conserving the values of buildings had been addressed and added that a
member of the public had suggested that dogs were a bigger issue than the chickens would be.
She stated the ordinance was well written and comprehensive. She stated that she found that
with this unique application, the review criteria had been met. She suggested a provision be
included for checking the permit after the fact and a procedure through the Police Department if
abandoned animals were found
MOTION: Mr. Harned moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09165 with the inclusion of the language
“as”. The motion carried 4-1. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Vice
Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski.
ITEM 5. AMENDMENT TO ZONING COMMISSION BY LAWS
1. An update to the establishment of the composition of the City of Bozeman Zoning
Commission per City of Bozeman City Commission Resolution #3312.
4
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 1, 2009
159
5
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 1, 2009
Assistant Director Saunders presented the amendment to the ZC bylaws. He suggested the
Commission form a subcommittee of two members to review the bylaws and prepare all the
required changes at once.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the Commission had any questions.
Vice Chairperson Minnick asked how a subcommittee would work with Staff. Assistant
Director Saunders responded Staff would help the Commission and it would not be a terrific time
commitment.
Mr. Sypinski volunteered to help to be a member of the subcommittee, but Chairperson
Pomnichowski suggested the Commission had been operating with 5 members since 1999 after
the city county board was dissolved. She noted the amendments were all really straight forward
and asked that Staff change the references and incorporate the redline changes without members
of the Commission. She noted the Commission would then act on the proposed changes all at
once.
Mr. Lieb stated he agreed with Chairperson Pomnichowski.
Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested Staff bring an updated set of bylaws with a correct set of
references to the next meeting for discussion. She opened and continued the item to the next
meeting of the Zoning Commission.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Pomnichowski welcomed Mr. Sypinski to the Zoning Commission.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the Downtown Plan may generate a number of zoning
changes that will be reviewed by the Zoning Commission and he wanted to make the members
aware.
Mr. Harned stated he will not be present at the Sept. 15th meeting, if scheduled.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
160
UDO Text Amendment to Section 18.80.080
1
RESOLUTION #Z-09165
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT
APPLICATION THAT WOULD MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITY IN SECTION 18.80.080, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map and
subdivision regulations through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-
301, 76-2-302, and 76-3-501 M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning
regulations if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct
a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning regulation
amendment requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for zoning regulation amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission initiated an application for a Unified
Development Ordinance text amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed
and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
September 1, 2009, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed
text amendment; and
WHEREAS, 13 members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Commission considered the offered comments and the proposed
amendments; and
161
UDO Text Amendment to Section 18.80.080
2
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s recommendation and discussion amongst
Commission members, the Zoning Commission found that the application complied with the
Review Criteria as set forth in the Montana Code Annotated and Bozeman Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission, on a vote of 4 in favor and 1 against,
approval for amendment to Section 18.80.080 with the language recommended by Staff.
DATED THIS 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009, Resolution #Z-09165
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Zoning Commission
162
1
Raising Urban Chickens: Best Practices Guide
Alison Sweeny, CLUC (Community Led Urban
Chickens)
(If the City Commission decides to enact an ordinance allowing residents to keep
chickens, the community would have a resource to turn to for information on responsible
practices regarding chickens. This would be preferable to the trial and error method of
keeping chickens illegally at the moment. This information is intended to give the reader
an idea of what the online page of the city web site regarding chickens will eventually
look like. It will ideally be a living web page, changing with ongoing updates and
additions. The site would begin as follows.)
Are Chickens right for you?
Keeping chickens in an urban setting can be a rewarding and enjoyable experience if you
have the time and discipline to give the girls the DAILY attention they require to be
healthy and happy.
Most people keeping urban chickens keep laying hens for the eggs. They tend to become
more like pets, with names, and distinct personalities. Roosters are not allowed in town
and you don’t need them for egg production. Eggs from your own back yard taste great,
cost less than the organic equivalent at the grocery store, and you will feel the comfort of
knowing what goes into your food.
Keeping a few meat birds is also allowed. Meat birds and laying hens require different
feed and care so you should keep them housed separately. You must follow slaughtering
requirements set out in the city ordinance. Stocking the freezer with your own game has
long been a Montana tradition,
now you can add a few backyard chickens if you wish.
How many birds should I get to meet my needs? Bozeman Municipal Code section
6.04.070, regulating urban chicken keeping allows most people to apply for 6 hens. If
you have an unusually large lot you may opt to go through a slightly more extensive
application process to keep up to 15 hens. Depending on the age and breed of your
chickens, and time of year, you will get approximately between 4 and 6 eggs per bird per
week. In Montana’s climate we suggest you keep at least 3 hens together for winter
warmth. They are also very social birds and one chicken by herself will be sad and
lonely.
(Here we would include a link to the exact section of the ordinance spelling out the
number of hens allowed)
163
2
Directory of information (on the website you could click on one of the topics below to
go directly to that section)
Bozeman Municipal Code 6.04.070
Example application
Proper coop construction
-including using heat lamps in compliance with city electric code
Safe handling practices
Hardy breeds for Montana
Care of baby chicks
Rooster identification
Daily care and maintenance
Hot weather care
Cold weather care
Caring for meat birds vs. egg layers
Common health concerns
-including contact information for a local veterinarian
Chicken behavior
-including molting, brooding, pecking order, and dust bathing
Free ranging your girls
Culling your flock
Feed and Supply Resources, local and online
-Including where to get chicks
Valuable Contacts and Resources
Insert link to BMC here
Example Application
(In this section we will include a properly completed example of each of the following
documents:)
164
3
-A sketch of the property denoting, to scale, the position of buildings and structures.
Including home, garage, proposed coop location, tool shed or other structures, fences,
property line, and the distance to the nearest inhabited structure (be it yours or your
neighbors home) from the proposed coop. Note that coop must be at least 20 feet from
the nearest inhabited structure with the exception of the applicants home, and 5 feet from
any property line.
-The application form that asks for: the name and address of applicant, (and property
owner if different), number of hens to be kept, a description of the coop to be built,
including dimensions, materials to be used and cubic footage of indoor and outdoor space
for birds.
-Association or property owner consent form for applicants not owning their property or
for condo associations etc.
-A neighbor notification page with space for neighbors to print their name and address
and sign to denote notification. This page will also contain a box for the neighbor to
check in case of protest. A section on this page will state that if two or more neighbors
protest they can ask for a commission hearing in order for the application to go forward.
(Here we would include a link to 2 drawings, one of a corner lot, and one of a lot in the
middle of the block, showing exactly which neighbors’ signatures need to be gathered.)
-A sworn statement page for the applicant to sign stating that all the info provided is
accurate.
(This section on the city web site will ideally include a link to printable downloads of
these application forms and will inform applicants to keep copies of all these documents
for future inspections or references.)
Proper Coop Construction
(It would be nice to include some sketches, photos, and links to online examples of coop
designs in this section as well; these things have yet to be prepared.)
Designing your coop: When thinking about designs for your new chicken coop you
should think about YOUR access to the coop. You want to design something attractive,
that will be appropriate for your property but most importantly you want to be able to
clean it easily! Your ability to refill food and clean water containers is important too, it
will make your life a lot easier if you think about the daily chores before you start to
build. Remember you are building a home for animals that depend on you, give them a
good life!
Minimum requirements your chickens need in their coop: They need a minimum of
two cubic feet inside per bird, and 4 cubic feet outside per bird. They need roosting poles
for sleeping at night. An easy way to do this is to construct one pole with one linear foot
per bird. By sharing a roosting pole they will stay warmer in winter. Some people use
165
4
nesting boxes for laying hens (one foot deep, one foot wide, and one foot tall) but others
say this is not necessary. You should only need one nest box for 3-4 hens. Allow space
for food and water containers ideally inside where they will not be subject to rain and
wind.
Protection from predators: Your chicken coop should be as predator proof as you can
make it. This means using sturdy materials like metal fencing, and wood. The roof of
the chicken run should be enclosed so that hawks or roaming cats wont find their way in.
Simple chicken wire will suffice. Any fencing should be buried 6 inches to one foot
below the ground to prevent dogs from digging under it. Piling rocks or cinder blocks
around the outside of your fencing can also deter digging, but may be less attractive.
Many people like to build the floor of the coop slightly off the ground. Make sure that
this does not provide an exit for the crafty chicken or an entrance to an intrigued predator.
Finally make sure all connections (like where the fencing attaches to the coop, and the
door/window latches etc.) are secure.
Ventilation is very important! The door from the coop into the “chicken run” (outdoor
area) will provide fresh air but only if there is sufficient air movement within the coop.
Placing a few screened ventilation holes (at least 2 inches in diameter) just under the
eaves of the roof of the coop, in addition to the door to the run, should be sufficient. If
you open the door to the coop and smell methane, it is not properly ventilated and should
be modified immediately. Proper ventilation will also keep the coop a little cooler on hot
summer days.
Chicken Coop Placement: This brings us to the decision of where to place your coop.
Remember Bozeman Municipal Code Section 6.04.070 requires that your coop be at least
20 feet from the nearest inhabited structure that is not your own home and at least 5 ft
from any property line. With this in mind look for a spot that will get both sun and some
shade during the day. In winter the girls will lay better if they can get some sun but they
should also have access to shade (other than the coop) on hot days.
Insulating Your Coop: This is one of the best things you can do for yourself and your
birds. In Montana’s climate they need to be kept warm through our long winters. If
properly insulated you shouldn’t need to use a heat lamp or other heating device until the
thermometer drops below zero. No insulation should be exposed inside or outside the
coop. The chickens will peck at it and ingest it. This doesn’t make for good meat or
eggs! We recommend using recycled materials in as many aspects of your coop
construction as possible. However, if you need to purchase materials “pink board” and
“blue board” are handy insulating choices. At least 2 inches of insulation is
recommended.
Materials to Avoid: Never have exposed insulation or building wrap. Fresh cedar
mulch or cedar sawdust contains harmful oils that can irritate the girl’s feet and lungs.
Kiln dried or baked cedar bark may be fine, if you notice your girls scratching all the
bedding out of the way, they don’t like it, switch to a different material. Don’t construct
anything in the coop out of cardboard. Do not use any caulking on parts of the coop,
166
5
indoor or out, that the girls have access to; they will eat this as well. Basically, if you
don’t want them eating it, don’t put it in the coop. Metal and wood and straw are
recommended materials.
Heating Your Coop: (In this section we would like to include a link to some
information and diagrams of properly constructed heating options, these have yet to be
prepared) In the winter it may be necessary to heat the chicken coop for a few days or
weeks. If poorly done, heating is a hazard to your girls and to you! The methods allowed
for heating a coop by the city building division are heat lamps, ceramic heaters and oil
filled radiators. The most important thing to remember when installing a heating device
in your coop is to place it out of reach of the chickens! Make sure they cannot get close
enough to burn themselves. Chickens are not smart creatures and will endanger
themselves if you let them. Burning feathers is not a good smell! And in town, your fire
is your neighbors fire!
When using electrical devices: (again, more diagrams may be helpful here, but they are
not ready at this time) You need to consider how you will get electricity to the chicken
coop. Using an extension cord is not permitted unless it is strung securely (remember
wind and weather) 10 feet above the ground, and dropped down just above the coop
where the chickens will not have access to it. The best way to get electricity to your coop
is to bury 12/2 wire 18 inches underground and install a light switch or outlet. Any wire
that the chickens will have access to must be in conduit, metal is best. This may require
an electrical inspection.
Safe Handling Practices
Salmonella is a bacteria, dangerous to humans, that lives in the intestinal tract of many
chickens, but it can be found on all parts of the bird. There is no way to tell if your
chickens have it so it’s safest to assume they do. The young, elderly, or those with
compromised immune systems are most at risk of terrible illness or death from
salmonella. Always wash your hands with soap after handling chickens, their eggs, or
their manure. Designate tools to clean the coop and keep them out of reach of children.
Wash eggs and store in the refrigerator. While handling chickens, their eggs, or their
manure do not touch your eyes, nose, mouth or other parts of your face until you wash
your hands with soap.
Hardy Breeds For Montana
It is important when selecting chicks to make sure the breeds you buy can handle the
conditions in Montana. Breeds not suited to the extreme cold and hot temperatures here
will not only lay poorly, they will suffer and possibly die. This is cruel, so do your
research. Some good, popular breeds that do well here are listed below. There are many
more that are not included here, but are acceptable in Montana. A breed marked with a
(D) denotes a dual-purpose bird used for eggs and meat.
Wyandottes (D)
167
6
Rhode Island Reds
New Hampshire Reds (D)
Plymouth Rocks (including “Barred Rocks”) (D)
Orpingtons
Araucanas
Jersey Giants (D)
Australorps
Brahmas (D)
Buckeyes
Sussex (D)
Meat Chickens: Leghorns and Cornish Cross are preferred meat chickens that do well in
Montana. Always ask your supplier questions to make sure you are getting a breed that
is suited to our area and your purposes (egg layer/meat). Lots of information is also
available online.
Caring for Baby Chicks
Baby chicks need to stay warm: They shouldn’t be subjected to temperatures below 40
degrees until they are 6 weeks old. The ideal temp for baby chicks is somewhere
between 65 to 75 degrees. It is suggested to keep them inside with a heat lamp if
needed. Always keep a thermometer in with the chicks so you can easily monitor and
adjust the temperature if needed. If using a heat lamp, raise the lamp a little every week
to decrease the temp. gradually until the birds are used to room temperature. You may
want to “harden them off” like you would with plant seedlings by placing them outside
during the day and bringing them in at night until night time temps stay above 40
degrees.
Food and Water: It’s best to use a feeder designed for chicks so they don’t brood on top
of their food and thereby contaminate it. Make sure that the water container you choose
will not allow a chick to drown. Keep food and water fresh, cleaning or changing it twice
a day. A clean chicken is more likely to be a healthy chicken!
Chicks bedding: Sawdust is recommended. Never use fresh cedar; it will irritate their
skin and lungs. You could use shredded paper but straw is a little too hard for the chicks
to move around in just yet. Flat newspaper or wire mesh may cause disorders with
chick’s feet. Change the bedding at least twice a week for sanitation. This will help
control the smell as well.
Buy special chick feed! Make sure your feed is appropriate for the type of chicken
you’re raising (meat/egg layer). Do not feed baby chicks of any kind, egg layer food.
Buy special starter food. The high levels of Calcium in egg layer food could damage
baby chicks’ kidneys. No table scraps for at least 6 weeks, then introduce them slowly,
chopped up into small, chicken-bite sized pieces. It’s not recommended to give chickens
onions or potato, they don’t digest these properly.
168
7
Rooster Identification
The city of Bozeman doesn’t allow roosters beyond the age of three months because you
can definitely tell by this point if you’ve got one. (Link to specific language in BMC)
There are four defining characteristics by which to tell a rooster. The first is a spur.
The spur looks like an extra digit but grows above the rear talon of a chicken’s foot, a
little ways up the leg. No matter what breed you have, if it’s a rooster it will have a spur.
Many hens have combs but a rooster’s comb will be noticeably larger by 4 weeks old.
The third way to identify a rooster is its tail feathers. Roosters have long, beautiful,
pointed, sometimes curled tail feathers. Their feathers will also be very glossy and
shiny. Roosters have an oil gland just above their tail feathers that makes them shiny. Of
course the one characteristic everyone recognizes as a rooster is the crowing. If you have
a rooster the first time he crows, you will know. If you end up with a rooster in town you
need to get rid of it. Place an ad in the paper or some people have had great luck with
craigslist.
Daily Care and Maintenance
A really easy way to maintain a clean, odor free chicken coop is to remove the manure
every day. This is easily done with a small bucket and a rubber glove like the kind you
use for cleaning your house. When you go out to the coop to check for eggs, put on the
glove and remove any droppings placing them in the bucket. Empty this right away into
your compost or trashcan. Keep these and any other tools used in the coop in a special
place out of the reach of children and use them only for this purpose. After filling food,
refreshing water, and collecting eggs, make sure to wash your hands and the eggs, storing
them in the refrigerator. With this method a deeper clean will only be necessary once a
month or so.
Hot Weather Care
A properly ventilated coop will stay cooler on hot days but it is still important to make
sure the hens have access to shade and plenty of cool, clean water. Chickens cool
themselves through the circulation of blood through the comb and wattle so they could
overheat on days above 90 degrees. Sometimes you might see a chicken panting slightly
with it’s mouth open. Avoid giving your hens “scratch grains” containing too much corn
when the weather is hot out. Corn speeds up their metabolism and makes them heat up.
While this is great for warmth in the winter they obviously don’t need it in August. Give
them simple rolled oats and other table scraps instead as a treat.
Cold Weather Care (ideally we would have a link here to the same specific information
and diagrams from the building department mentioned earlier under Proper Coop
Construction: Heating Your Coop, showing properly constructed heating options)
169
8
If you get breeds that are known to be hardy in colder climates they may surprise you at
just how well they handle the cold. Many chickens in Bozeman stay outside to -20
degrees if they have an insulated chicken coop. Using a heat lamp at night can be done
when temps reach below 0 but remember that with that light on your girls don’t really
sleep so it stresses them a bit and egg production will fall.
Caring for Meat Birds vs. Egg Layers
The approach to raising chickens for meat is different than raising egg layers for a couple
of reasons. First they eat different food. Food for meat birds is formulated with a high
protein content to help the birds put on weight quickly and does not contain the extra
calcium needed for egg layers. Secondly people tend not to get as attached to these
animals because they will only have them for about 2-3 months whereas people keeping
chickens for eggs will keep the same hen for 5 years or more. Also the payoff is
different, some say you can’t compete with commercial prices for meat but if you
compare organic, free range chicken meat to the meat your raising you can make it pay
off. Egg layers will take longer to pay for themselves, depending on what you invest on
your coop, but they have a longer time to recoup the cost.
A good time to order meat chicks is August when it’s warm so they can begin living
outside right away. When it comes time to slaughter in October there will be fewer flies
to attend your already unpleasant task of culling your flock. Be aware that many breeds
of meat birds put on weight so quickly that they sometimes get heart and leg problems.
(We would include a link here to the exact BMC language regulating slaughter)
Common Health Concerns
Seeking medical attention for your birds: Luckily Bozeman does have an avian
veterinarian comfortable dealing with chickens. If you notice a health concern with one
of your birds you may contact Dr. Klaphake at the Animal Medical Center, 216 N 8th
Ave. (406) 587-2946. He may be able to help diagnose and treat many ailments. Other
veterinarians may also be willing to help you.
Different Approaches: Some ailments like “crooked foot” are easily treated with a
vitamin supplement added to the chicken’s water supply. Other things like mites will
take more involved treatments and complete sanitation of the coop and run areas that the
chickens occupy. If your birds become sluggish, have decreased egg production, or
discoloration of the comb and wattle, they may have something going on. There are
natural treatments for most ailments, but sometimes just like people, chickens need
treatment with antibiotics.
Caution: There is a lot of information online but always ask a health professional before
beginning treatments.
Chicken Behavior
170
9
Dust Bathing: Something most chickens do that may appear strange is dust bathing.
Just like cats, chickens like a good dust bath to remove old oils on their feathers. They do
this by digging themselves a shallow hole in a dusty patch of ground and laying in it, on
their breasts, and kicking their legs to throw dust onto their backs. It’s weird looking but
normal.
Brooding: This can become annoying to chicken keepers as it discourages other
members of their flock from laying. One chicken decides she wants to hatch her eggs
and begins sitting on them all day and night. It can also become dangerous to the
brooders health, as she may not get off the eggs to eat and drink. Some people say to let
the chicken go through this process, that when it’s finished she will molt and be even
more beautiful and healthy. Others suggest picking her up off the eggs and tossing her
out into the run while removing the eggs. Whatever works, chickens like people, are all
different.
Molting: This is a natural process that chickens go through every couple of years. Just
like when they lose their baby down and get adult feathers they will loose these old
feathers and grow in new ones. They will be shiny and beautiful when they are done but
meanwhile your coop will be filled with feathers and your birds will be ugly ducklings
for sure. Keep the coop as clean as you can while this is going on because chickens have
been known to eat feathers.
Pecking: The term “Pecking Order” came from chickens and it’s very real. One chicken
may start antagonizing another by chasing it, pecking it, and ripping out feathers. If
blood is drawn, other chickens will join in and the victim may be killed. Most chicks if
raised together will have no problems. If you are trying to introduce new birds into your
flock, house them adjacent but separately at first so that they can see each other through a
fence. After a few weeks place them together paying close attention to what happens.
Never introduce chicks into a coop with full grown hens, they won’t last. If you see
incidents of pecking keep a close eye on your flock to see how bad it gets. If a chicken
starts developing bald spots separate the aggressor for a few days. This will theoretically
lower them in the pecking order. If this doesn’t work separate the victim until it heals
completely. Then try reintroducing them into the flock while keeping a close watch.
Some birds will never get along.
Free Ranging Your Girls
The concept of free-range chickens is everyone’s ideal. However there are things to be
careful of. First of all it is not legal to have a chicken “at large” in the city. They need
to be fully contained on your property. Violation will result in a fine from Animal
Control. (Include a link to exact BMC language).
Secondly they are more vulnerable to predators outside of their coop and run which
should be predator proof. There is a leash law in Bozeman but that doesn’t mean
everyone obeys it. Most accidental deaths in chickens in Bozeman have to do with dogs
171
10
attacking chickens. This is a sad way to loose a pet so be careful. The other type of
predators that people may not think of is larger birds of prey. Hawks have been known to
attack and kill domestic chickens. The safest way to free range your girls is to let them
out while you are gardening or doing other yard work and then put them back in their
coop when you finish or leave your property. It’s also best to only let them run around
parts of the yard that are fully fenced and secure unless using a portable chicken tractor.
Something else to consider would be to clip a wing. Especially if you are raising
bantams, which can definitely fly, you might want to clip just one wing so they will be
off balanced when attempting to fly. Clip only the long primary feathers that grow out of
the tip of the wing. Do not cut too far down the feather. Just like clipping your dogs and
cats claws you can hurt your hen if you clip too much off.
If you are raising meat birds, allowing them to forage does burn a few more calories, so
consider whether you want to do this at the expense of a few ounces off the finished
product. Closer to the slaughter date they may also be quite large and have more
difficulty moving or breathing. Take these things into consideration when deciding to
“free range” your girls or not.
Culling Your Flock (again, include link to specific BMC language regarding
slaughtering)
Slaughter will be something that many chicken keepers will or must do as part of owning
chickens. You can buy supplies online from many retailers. The basic supplies and
equipment that you will need are: a good sharp knife, a slaughter cone, a pot large enough
to submerge the bird, a heat source to boil water, a clean work station with a bleach
bucket, towels, an apron, gloves, mask if desired, a waste container, butcher paper or
plastic wrap to store the finished product in the freezer/refrigerator.
According to the city ordinance regulating urban chicken keeping you must slaughter
“out of the public view”. This means no neighbors windows, and passers by on the street
cannot be able to see what you are doing. While you may want a closer connection to
your food, the act of slaughtering within the city may be upsetting to some people even in
the rural west. Please keep this in mind while engaging in this practice.
(I do intend to include the contact info for the mobile processing unit out of Livingston in
this section but have not put it together yet.)
(These next two sections should be available as one printable download so that people
can have all of these resources at their fingertips)
Feed and Supply Resources, local and online
-Murdoch’s Ranch and Home Supply. 2311 N 7th Ave, Bozeman MT 59715. (406)
587-5846. They carry chicken feed and dietary supplements. Every spring before Easter
they do sell chicks, but supply has been limited lately due to the increase in the interest in
backyard chickens nationally. Call before you drive. The chicks Murdoch’s carries will
172
11
typically be hardy breeds acceptable in Montana. Their other chicken supplies like
feeders and water containers are available only in spring when the chicks arrive.
-Bridger Feeds. 501 Evergreen Drive, Bozeman MT 59715. (406) 586-3026. They
carry regionally produced and organic varieties of chicken feed. Some dietary
supplements, and specialty items are available.
-McMurray Hatchery, online at mcmurrayhatchery.com sells almost everything
imaginable. When ordering chicks make sure to ask if the breeds you select are hardy in
cold temperatures. Most online hatcheries will only ship chicks in a group of 20-25 so
get a buying group together to share the shipment.
-Backyard Chickens, online at backyardchickens.com is another great supplier of
everything having to do with chickens. Again ask if the breeds you order are hardy in
Montana winter conditions.
Valuable Contacts and Resources
Dr. Klaphake, Animal Medical Center,
216 N. 8th Ave Bozeman MT 59715
(406) 587-2946
Gallatin County Health Dept.
215 W. Mendenhall Bozeman MT 59715
(406) 582-3120
Gallatin County Extension Services
201 W. Madison Ave, Suite 300
Belgrade MT 59714
(406) 388-3213
City of Bozeman Contact
(regarding questions about the ordinance
who might that be?)
The CLUC Movement
Community Led Urban Chicken Movement
Clucmovement.blogspot.com
clucmovement@gmail.com
City of Bozeman
Animal Control
615 S. 16th Ave, Bozeman MT 59715
(406) 582-2000
173
InterNeighborhood Council Memorandum
REPORT TO: The Bozeman City Commission
FROM: InterNeighborhood Council (INC)
SUBJECT: INC recommendation for the approval of Ordinance 1767, the Urban Chicken
Ordinance.
MEETING DATE: September 14, 2009
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners,
In your September 14, 2009 discussions regarding the provisional adoption of Ordinance 1767, the
Urban Chicken Ordinance, please consider the following motion and vote taken on September 8, 2009
by the InterNeighborhood Council in support of adoption:
At the September 8, 2009 INC meeting Ordinance 1767, the Urban Chicken Ordinance, was discussed
by the INC. It was moved by Bill VandenBos, seconded by Lori Foster that,
“The INC recommends City Commission approval of Ordinance 1767, the Urban Chicken Ordinance.”
The motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0.
Frank Munshower, BCNA Delegate, Catherine Byrd, CAN Delegate and Dana Huschle, NHVN
Delegate were absent.
Respectfully submitted,
2009 InterNeighborhood Council Delegates:
Mary Cloud Ammons, NENA Delegate and INC Chair
Bill VandenBos, Marywn-Lindley Delegate and INC Vice-Chair
Bob Wall, SENA Delegate and INC Secretary
Elisabeth Healy, SCAN Delegate
Lori Foster, BPNA Delegate
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294