By Amanda Estes

Staff Writer

    South Portland Mayor Claude Morgan wasn’t far off
last week when he estimated the ratio of support for changing the
city’s zoning ordinance to allow for the keeping of pet hens to be
15-to-one in favor.

    On Monday, the city council heard from 17 residents
in favor and one resident opposed before voting 5-2 in favor of
amending the ordinance during a first reading. Jim Soule and Kay Loring
were the two dissenting councilors.

     With the council scheduled to make their final
decision at the Sept. 5 meeting, residents crowded council chambers and
held up colorful placards urging the council to “Give peeps a chance”
and “Say yes to pet hens.”

    Ten-year-old Olivia Collins and her parents Neil and
Stacey are requesting the city’s residential zoning ordinance which
prohibits the keeping of fowl, be amended to allow residents to raise a
small number of hens. Stacey Collins helped draft the amendments that
would allow residents to have six chickens per house lot and for
personal use only.   

    “When we first came to workshop back in May, we had
no idea it was going to be this big, city wide issue,” said Stacey
Collins.

    She said as of Monday they had collected 358 signatures via a petition.    

    If approved, the amendments would require residents
who wish to keep hens to pay $25 for an annual permit and a $25
one-time building permit fee for the construction of a henhouse or pen.
The amendments also outline standards for the keeping of the chickens
to ensure they are kept in a sanitary manner, away from predators and
in a way that minimizes any adverse impact on neighbors.

    Any violations of the ordinance would result in a
fine up to $100, with each day the violation continues considered a
separate offense.  

    Bob Johnson, owner of Scratch Baking Company said he was “in complete support” of allowing hens in the city.

    “From an educational perspective, having been
involved in specialty food businesses for over 20 years, I am
constantly astonished at how many smart and well educated suburban
children equate their food source to a frozen entree or a cardboard box
with an action figure in it,” he said.

    Joseph Carpenito elicited some laughs and groans
when he thanked the council for giving the issue “a chance to fly.” He
said he has seen backyard chickens in Tacoma, Wash. in 
neighborhoods more densely populated than those in South Portland. When
Tacoma officials went through a similar process with their ordinance,
Carpenito said those opposed to the fowl were misinformed or didn’t
understand what was being proposed.

    A new resident from Pittsburgh, Penn., Meredith
Mendelson, said she was more accustomed to city meetings in which a
room full of people would speak out about what they didn’t want in
their backyard or their neighbors’ backyards.

    “It’s a really rare thing to see a room full of
people saying, ‘Maybe if I don’t want this in my backyard I think its
okay for my neighbors to have it in theirs,’” she said.  

    Pamela Beal was the only person to speak against the amendments.

    “I guess tonight I’m the skunk at the lawn party,
but its nice to be here and this is democracy in action,” she said.

    Beal questioned how many viewpoints were being represented and suggested the city hold a referendum vote.

    “I believe our city has a lot of good people who
have good intentions and I do have a concern about stressing our
existing resources, monitoring chicken coops, monitoring cleaning out
chicken coops and monitoring complaints that might come from
neighbors,” she said.

    Beal asked the council to consider the person who
doesn’t want chickens in their backyard and how uncomfortable that
person might be about complaining about their neighbor.   

    Loring said she also favored a referendum vote and
said she expects more people to come forward to speak out in the coming
month.

    Councilors expressed concern over the absence of an
additional provision that would require a 20 foot setback for the
construction of a henhouse from the rear or side property lines. A
provision that would require residents to notify all abutters of any
plans to build a henhouse less than 20 feet from the property line was
also absent from the draft.

    The waiver would have required all abutters to be
notified by mail within seven days during which time, the resident
seeking the permit must prove the hens will not have a negative impact.


    “This 20 foot setback issue has been something that
I felt was necessary for me to vote in favor of this,”said Councilor
Linda Boudreau, proposing the setback be added to the ordinance. “This
just provides for our community a level of security and protection at
this time that (those opposed to hens) aren’t going to find someone
putting a henhouse right up along the fence adjacent to them.”  

    Councilors Loring, Ralph Baxter and Jim Hughes
opposed the 20 foot setback and the waiver, but for different reasons.
Loring was opposed to the waiver and favored a mandatory 20 foot
setback, while Baxter and Hughes favored a 10 foot setback.  

    “I would like to see a footage we all agree on-if
its 20 feet, 15 feet, whatever- but when we say a waiver that is just
loosening up the whole thing and I’m looking to tighten it up,” said
Loring.  

    With a suggestion by the Code Enforcement Director
Patricia Doucette to increase the notification period, the council
approved (with Baxter opposed) the 20 foot setback and a 20 day period
for notifying abutters.

    Boudreau proposed deleting a provision requiring a
vegetative buffer around the area to hide it from abutting properties
be removed from the ordinance as screening may be a subjective term.
The provision was removed, however, Loring and Soule favored requiring
screening measures.

    The council also unanimously approved a regulation
that would terminate a permit in the event residents are absent from
their property for 60 days.

    “I’ve had a couple of calls on this,”said Maxine
Beecher, who proposed the amendment. “The concern is that people may
assume that if they sell their house that the chicken permit
automatically goes with the house and they can continue it. The point
is a manner for the city to keep track of who’s got chickens.”

    In an effort to keep track of how many residents
plan to have chickens, Soule proposed a first year limit of 15 permits,
however, the amendment failed to gain support.

    Stacey Collins, responding to Soule’s inquiry about
how many residents want chickens, said besides the existing chickens in
South Portland, in the next two years, the city might see 10 households
interested in keeping chickens.

    “We already have chickens in South Portland
illegally,” he said. “We have not been able to enforce our current
ordinance which prohibits that so how are we going to enforce an
ordinance that we don’t know what the impact of it is yet.”

    Responding to Soule, Baxter said that the city hasn’t enforced the law as it hasn’t been a priority.

    Doucette said she was not aware of any existing chickens.