Basin Council unscrambles chicken ordinances

At the Oct. 12 Basin Town Council meeting, Chief of Police Kyle McClure brought forth a complaint from a resident regarding roosters in town. The rooster in the complaint is in a rural residential zone.
Before the start of the discussion, Mayor CJ Duncan reminded the council that the rural residential zoning was set up prior to the town allowing chickens in other residential zones. When the rural residential zone was established, there were no restrictions on chickens for those zones.  
Councilman Brent Godfrey agreed. He said it was set up because some 4-H and FFA kids wanted to have show horses, rabbits, etc. Duncan added that the lot sizes are bigger, as well.
When the town added a chicken ordinance for the regular residential areas, that ordinance read no roosters.
Town attorney Kent Richins explained that at the time he reviewed the residential chicken ordinance, he didn’t consider the rural residential ordinance. The rural ordinance allows for management of livestock. “The issue is whether or not a rooster is livestock. My understanding is that you need a rooster to have chickens, but you don’t need a rooster to lay eggs,” explained Richins.
Councilman Stuart DesRosier read a definition of livestock from USDA. It stated that livestock is beef, pork, veal, and lamb. Fish and poultry are not included in the livestock category. Richins noted he doesn’t believe that the town itself has pinned a definition of “livestock.”
Jen and Tom Olmstead, Basin residents, were in attendance as the complaint was about their rooster. Tom said the rooster is on the rural residential portion of their property. They are raising chicks to sell. They can’t do that without a rooster. He added the land use for that property says hobby farm operations and domestic farm animals. This is what they are doing.
Duncan noted that the land use also says it is not intended to allow large commercial livestock operations. His personal interpretation of the term “commercial” turns it into a profit-generating operation. He added that an argument could be made either way.
McClure told the council that the verbiage in Ordinance 4-2-12: Farm Animals prohibits a person from having any farm animals in the town. The definition of a farm animal is including but not limited to alpacas, burros, cattle, chickens, cows, ducks, geese, goats, horses, llamas, mules, sheep, swine, turkey, poultry of any description or any other livestock. Keeping farm animals is an agricultural use.
The land use matrix specifically allows “domestic farm animals.” McClure said the definition of a farm animal allows for chickens.
He could not find a definition of “hobby farm” in any of the town documentation he reviewed. McClure discussed more of the information he found. In his opinion, there was conflicting information depending on the source. The council will need to decide which supersedes the other.
His advice was that if the intent was to ban roosters within all areas of the town, this needs to be stated in the rural residential code. If the intent is to ban roosters only in residential, commercial, industrial, etc. areas of the town, it is covered with the current chicken ordinance.
Councilman Carl Olson said he believes that the matrix limited to number of animals per acre, not buying or selling.
Godfrey stated he would like the rural residential ordinance to stay the way it is. DesRosier and Councilman Chuck Hopkin agreed. Olson said he would like added something about limiting the number of animals.
The council decided they would like a definition of a hobby farm added and chickens/roosters that will be considered farm animals. Roosters will continue to be allowed in residential rural properties.
Richins will make the requested changes and bring them back to the council for review and adoption.
OTHER BUSINESS
• The by-laws for the Recreation District were updated with a change of meeting date/time. The meeting is now the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m.
• The town’s emergency management plan was approved.
• MauRena Scott submitted proposals to rent the Eagles Annex and the old town hall (front office only). Olson asked for a special meeting for the council to discuss the proposals. The meeting was set for Monday, Oct. 23. The council will decide at its Oct. 26 meeting.
• Town engineer Jesse Frisbee presented a revised plan for ADA parking for town hall. He also discussed options on drainage at the town shop.
• Duncan proposed that letters be sent to residents regarding their ground/storm/sump water dumping into the city sewer. The letter would request that by a said date they need to fix the issue. There was some discussion on what the consequences would be. This will be addressed when the ordinance is written.    A motion was made to send the letter and it passed.