Powassan's arbitrary "chicken eradication bylaw" is for the birds

Feb 27, 2008

What a pleasure it would have been this week to say that Powassan was going to the birds.

In an implausible act of ineptitude council voted four to two in favour of a bylaw that unacceptably restricts agricultural activity in their municipality – one with as strong an agricultural heritage as can be found in Almaguin and, indeed, in all of Northern Ontario.

The need for the bylaw still has not been made clear.

There are provincial regulations for these circumstances. Why the municipality would want to create something more onerous is puzzling – almost as puzzling as the explanation that comes from municipal staff for the zoning amendment.

All of a sudden we are told keeping a horse or two, or say 10 chickens, will require two to three hours of the deputy-clerk’s and building inspector’s time, plus a surveyor.

The cost would obviously be just too much for the taxpayer to bear.

So instead the amendment that was passed will require those wanting a few head of anything kicking about the backyard to get a minor variance.

With the cost of a chick, a fancy breed mind you, at about $2 a piece, 10 chicks could cost a whopping $20. The variance to let you keep the chicks, though, would be $300.

Fair? Hardly.

Councillors seemed to be falling all over themselves to say that this new bylaw is less restrictive than the one that was on the books. And that is true, except for one thing: they have never once enforced the one that is on the books.

Amazingly, this zoning amendment comes after a well-attended open house on the subject where not one individual spoke in favour of restricting agriculture in the Municipality of Powassan – not one. Yet remarkably when the amendment comes forward there is a brand new ridiculous set of restrictions meant to coral agrarian aspirations.

And we mean ridiculous.

There are so many aspects of the zoning amendment that if pinned to the political mat on the subject, not one member of council who voted in favour of it could rationalize.

Take for example the lot size of five acres. There is not a shred of logic behind the five-acre number. Somehow it was just conjured up out of thin air. We would bet that if the human species had seven digits on their hands the number would have been seven.

Or how about the fact that someone with 24 acres of land can only have the same amount of livestock as someone with five acres of land.

Or how about the person who wakes up one morning to 30 pigs nestled nicely onto a five-acre hobby farm. One doubts they would prefer the pigs to a dozen chickens on a one-acre lot.

Then there are the potentially never-ending arguments about what is a pet and what is livestock. Is a chicken or two going to be considered livestock where a couple of rabbits aren’t? How about a pot-bellied pig with a collar? Will miniature horses get a pass where a Shetland Pony will require a hearing in front of council?

And let’s consider the jurisdictions the municipality has just become more restrictive than. Last week’s vote makes Powassan more restrictive than New York City, New York, where a permit is all one needs to keep as many hens as can be maintained; residents of Chicago, Illinois can have an unlimited number of chickens if their use is only as a pet or for eggs; Houston, Texas permits up to 30; Miami, Florida allows up to 15 hens, no roosters; and Los Angeles, California allows unlimited chickens but not within 20 feet of the owner's residence and at least 35 feet from any other dwelling.

But there are lots of things that happen in those cities that one doesn’t want happening in Powassan.

We also need to remember that this isn’t all about chickens. It could be about horses as well. It has come to our attention that many Amish and Mennonite communities in southern Ontario have, on human rights grounds, made exceptions to zoning bylaws to allow for the keeping of at least one horse on town lots. This is so as not to deprive these members of the citizenry the ability to carry on their lifestyle/religion without undue impediment.

Alas this zoning amendment shows none of that sort of foresight, instead creating arbitrary rules for incomprehensible reasons.

But worry not citizens of Powassan. Unless your name is Taylor this bylaw does not affect you.

When the zoning amendment was brought before council it should have been dubbed the Paige Taylor Chicken Eradication Bylaw.

This bylaw appears to have her chickens and her chickens alone in its sights.
Why else pass it?

Councillor Gerry Giesler makes it very plain, “if you don’t get caught then you’re not guilty.”

So far the 11-year-old is the only one who has been caught and with this zoning amendment she is the only one that remains guilty.

It will soon be a year since Paige’s chickens first stirred up a commotion about zoning and animals in the municipality. Considering all of the time and effort invested in creating this latest zoning masterpiece, the final result isn’t worth lining the bottom of a birdcage with.