seven hills ohio news (Cleveland, Independence: for sale, new home, neighborhood)

[captbilly]

why is it that seven hills allows chickens & roosters in this "upscale" community? I just can't believe it! The board of Health has been called as well as the councilman,the building department and Mayor Bentkowski. The police were called last weekend for loose chickens in the neighborhood. The smell is overwhelming and OMG, did I mention there are chickens and a rooster? WHAT is going on? Anyone else have any issues with farm animals in seven hills? I'm thinking about getting a goat(for milk) and a sheep(for wool) as it is NOT against any ordinance.

[BoneyBenny]

Seven Hills allows chickens, roosters, goats and sheep? I'm sure it's some outdated ordinance left over from the farming era. Most likely they'll repeal it before Seven Hills becomes West 25th street. Either that, or they'll take Herbert Hoover's campaign promise of "a chicken in every pot" literally and distribute livestock to every resident. I'm sure the smell won't travel too far into Independence. After all, Independence still cares about their neighborhood standards and won't be happy being downwind.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Yeah, you must be the only unlucky one who lives near someone with them. However, there probably is a legal protection for your neighbor to have chickens IF he/she keeps it orderly and un-smelly. All they really have to do is cover the droppings with pulverized limestone every few days to kill the odor. That's what my grandfather did. You couldn't smell a thing. Maybe you should suggest that to them.

Boney, I know for a fact that Independence still allows people to have them. There is a lot-size requirement, but that's all.

[BoneyBenny]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Boney, I know for a fact that Independence still allows people to have them. There is a lot-size requirement, but that's all.

Cleveland_C, I believe you are in error. I checked the official Indepencence Ohio City Ordinance website ( W. H. Drane - Municipal Codes ), and did not find anything regarding keeping farm animals. I looked through each sub of section 618 (the "animals" section) and found they have very strict regulations regarding what types of pets can be owned, the proper care of said animals, and a list of prohibited wild animals (618.21) that may not be kept as pets.

I didn't see where they allow livestock or farm animals. Please check your facts and post where in the city ordinances they say different.

[Cleveland_Collector]

If the city ordinance does not expressly disallow it, then it's allowed. The lot size requirement is 100 x 200ft which is the same as that of any new, residential construction. Also, chickens are small, harmless, domesticated animals. While I tend to disagree, some even say they're as smart as dogs and/or 2 year old humans. If any animal is being a nuisance, you have a right to complain about it. However, you can have chickens. Read below:

You can even sell 'em!! Just don't color 'em...

618.06 COLORING RABBITS AND BABY POULTRY; SALE OR DISPLAY OF POULTRY.

(a) No person shall dye or otherwise color any rabbit or baby poultry, including, but not limited to, chicks and ducklings. No person shall sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, raffle or give away any rabbit or baby poultry which has been dyed or otherwise colored. No poultry younger than four weeks of age may be sold, given away or otherwise distributed to any person in lots of less than six. Stores, shops, vendors and others offering young poultry for sale or other distribution shall provide and operate brooders or other heating devices that may be necessary to maintain poultry in good health, and shall keep adequate food and water available to the poultry at all times.
(b) Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be fined not less than five dollars ($5.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for a first offense; for a second offense such person shall be fined not less than forty dollars ($40.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00); for each subsequent offense such person shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than two hundred dollars ($200.00).

618.21 WILD OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS.

(a) For the purpose of this section, "dangerous animal" shall include, unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, the following:

(1) Any wild mammal, reptile or fowl which is not naturally tame or gentle, but is of a wild nature or disposition, and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it escaped from secure quarters.

^^ I think that ...

(2) Any domestic mammal, reptile or fowl which, because of its size, vicious propensity or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it escaped from secure quarters.

...and that spells it out quite clearly.^^ I don't think I've ever encountered a killer chicken. Have you?

(b) No person shall keep, maintain or have in his or her possession or under his or her control within the City any poisonous reptile or any other dangerous or carnivorous wild animal or reptile, or any vicious or dangerous domesticated animal, or any other animal or reptile of wild, vicious or dangerous propensities.

(c) No person shall keep, maintain or have in his or her possession or under his or her control within the City any of the following animals:

It's a long list, but chickens aren't on it. Anyway, it's pretty easy to see that they're quite legal. Maybe you should call Greg Kurtz...

[Chef Boyardee]

Now if we could just get the price of chicken feed down

[Cleveland_Collector]

Give them your kitchen scraps along with the feed. It cuts down on the feed you have to buy and they go nuts over it.

[Chef Boyardee]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Give them your kitchen scraps along with the feed. It cuts down on the feed you have to buy and they go nuts over it.

Now you're talking!

They say you can buy chickens cheap at county fairs and a hen will lay about 5 eggs a week after 6 months, but they're big enough to eat in about 3 months.

[BoneyBenny]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

If the city ordinance does not expressly disallow it, then it's allowed.
You must have missed this:

618.13 NUISANCE CONDITIONS PROHIBITED.
(a) No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the Municipality so as to create offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public.

As chickens are dirty, smelly and eat their own feces, this doesn't support their legality. As for your claim that the city doesn't disallow it, then it's allowed, there's nothing in the vicious animal section you quoted regarding elephants. According to you, this means they are allowed. I doubt that is based anywhere near reality.

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

The lot size requirement is 100 x 200ft which is the same as that of any new, residential construction.

Please cite where you read this in the city ordinances, if this isn't something you've heard somewhere or made up.

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

618.21 WILD OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
...and that spells it out quite clearly.^^ I don't think I've ever encountered a killer chicken. Have you?
It's a long list, but chickens aren't on it. Anyway, it's pretty easy to see that they're quite legal. Maybe you should call Greg Kurtz...

This whole section is regarding vicious animals. You could have quoted the ordinance about seeing eye dogs and that would be just as irrelevant. You've failed to cite where chickens are permitted according to the city ordinances. For a city that has such strict regulations regarding dogs, I find it very difficult to accept that they would allow keeping chickens in their city based on the claim that if "it's not disallowed, then it's allowed".

[Cleveland_Collector]

Dude, either get a clue or stop arguing. To requote myself:

618.21 WILD OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS.

(a) For the purpose of this section, "dangerous animal" shall include, unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning, the following:

(1) Any wild mammal, reptile or fowl which is not naturally tame or gentle, but is of a wild nature or disposition, and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it escaped from secure quarters.

^^ I think that ...

(2) Any domestic mammal, reptile or fowl which, because of its size, vicious propensity or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it escaped from secure quarters.

...and that spells it out quite clearly.^^ I don't think I've ever encountered a killer chicken. Have you?

In an argument, it is unwise to cherry-pick information from sources that are presented to you as it is quite obvious that the presenter has a thorough understanding of it. This ordinance CLEARLY states on both accounts that the animal in question must not qualify under any of the following circumstances:

"because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it escaped from secure quarters."

I do believe that the average elephant, by its sheer size alone, has the propensity to cause some serious damage to person or property. They are also not even close to being naturally tame. They are actually quite unpredictable. Also, as it is so clearly stated, an animal being "vicious" is not the only disallowing criterion. Unfortunately for your flaccid argument, a chicken;

a.) is too small to cause any real damage to anything
b.) is naturally tame and quite docile, as are many domesticated animals
c.) does not, in any way, pose a danger to human life or property if it was to get loose

100' x 200' is the minimum lot size in Independence. If you don't believe me, I do not care. This argument is about whether chickens can be kept on private property. The ordinance not only doesn't state illegality, it cleary states the opposite and actually imposes NO LAND RESTRICTIONS!! This would infer that the minimum legal lot size for new home construction sets that precedent. It is also likely that older homes are grandfathered in. I don't know that for sure, nor do I care to prove it. According to the codified ordinance of the city, you're wrong. Get over it.

As for your feeble retort, dogs can also be dirty and smelly. Most will also eat there own feces if given the chance. Does the nuisance law disallow dogs because of that? No. It disallows the owners of said animals to allow their animals to become a nuisance. The same would apply to chickens. It is quite possible (and quite easy) to keep a small brood of chickens from bothering anyone. It would be the owner's responsibility to comply with that ordinance in the same way that it would with any other animal.