NAZARETH, Pa. — Even though their winged companions aren’t able to take to the air themselves, more than a dozen owners of chickens and ducks let their opinions fly Tuesday before Nazareth Borough Council.
Just as a dog is considered man’s best friend, they argued their birds are family all the same.
“I’m gonna ask all of you to do this, and go by the ordinance that’s already on the books for the pets … and treat our chickens just like cats and dogs in this borough.”Nazareth resident and chicken owner Susan Walk
“I don’t think there’s anybody up there that cannot know how much we all love our chickens and how much we all take care of our chickens," resident Susan Walk said to council.
"So I’m not gonna debate anything that’s in [the potential amendments]. I’m gonna ask all of you to do this, and go by the ordinance that’s already on the books for the pets.
"And treat our chickens just like cats and dogs in this borough.”
More than 40 residents filed into the Nazareth Regional Ambulance Corps building on Seip Avenue to speak more on potential adjustments to the borough’s animal ordinance — which was once proposed to ban the birds altogether.
The newest rendition would allow any six-bird combination of chickens and ducks on any one property.
There was no official action taken Tuesday, as council members just heard feedback from residents for about an hour.
Council President Daniel Chiavaroli said the panel would discuss it further, which could bring changes to what’s currently on the table.
Bath and Tatamy boroughs appear to have chicken-keeping rules in place similar to those proposed in Nazareth. The keeping of poultry and livestock have been regulated under Nazareth code for more than 40 years.
A noncommercial basis
The amended animal ordinance, similar to what’s on the books now, would allow citizens of the borough “to keep chickens and ducks on a noncommercial basis as an accessory use to a residence, while limiting the adverse effects of the activity on surrounding properties.”
Any commercial use — such as selling eggs or producing fertilizer — currently requires a special permit.
If approved, the amended ordinance would allow only female poultry or fowl that’s a member of the species “Gallus domesticus,” and flightless duck species — not wild ducks with clipped wings. That also means no roosters, male ducks, geese, turkeys, grouses or pheasants, as written.
If approved, the amended ordinance would allow only female poultry or fowl that’s a member of the species “Gallus domesticus,” as well as flightless duck species — not wild ducks with clipped wings.
That also means no roosters, male ducks, geese, turkeys, grouses or pheasants, as written.
Other notable points of the amended ordinance include:
- Needing a valid permit, effective up to two years
- Potential fines of up to $600 plus court costs
- All manure has to be stored at least 25 feet from any residence on an adjacent property, and not less than 25 feet from any particular lot line
- One coop and one run are allowed per property, to be put up in the rear yard area at least 25 feet from any resident on adjacent property, 25 feet from any street and 10 feet from any property line
- No external illumination allowed outside the coops and runs
'Non-fowl owners have to be respected, too'
In what appeared to be one of the only comments Tuesday from the other side of the discussion, resident Kathy Sauerzopf said those not living with birds also should get a say on the matter.
“We have to remember: Non-fowl owners have to be respected, too, especially if the keeping of fowl affects their quality of life and property values,” Sauerzopf said.
Cynthia Snyder, a resident who doesn’t own fowl, said she never realized how many chicken owners lived locally. She said the turnout Tuesday “just proves everybody’s doing their part.”
“They don't eat ticks, they don't eat mosquitoes and they don’t lay eggs — and we still have dogs because they are our friends,” Snyder said, vouching for the birds.
“We have to remember: Non-fowl owners have to be respected, too, especially if the keeping of fowl affects their quality of life and property values."Kathy Sauerzopf, Nazareth resident
Earlier this month, Council President Chiavaroli said officials had fielded bird complaints from one resident for a year and a half.
It was said the person’s neighbor had chickens crossing onto the adjacent property.
“I feel like I’m being punished for someone’s wrongdoing,” said Tammy Stonewall, a bird owner who said she didn’t agree with the particular amendments regarding odors, pet permitting and more.
“My final thoughts: My pet restrictions shouldn’t be any more restrictive than any other pet in the borough.”
Her son, Cole, 12, keeps chickens and a duck named Shadow around as emotional support animals.
'My kids watch them, my kids take care of them'
Regarding the birds being too loud, resident Heather Wolfe said that’s really not a problem.
“They’re only noisy when they’re dropping an egg, to be honest with you,” said Wolfe, an owner of four chickens.
“They coo the rest of the time. That’s all they do; they just want to coo and chat with each other.”
Of a few issues with the amendments mentioned by resident Jennifer Grube, one involved a section prohibiting chickens and ducks from being kept inside a home on the property.
“They’re only noisy when they’re dropping an egg, to be honest with you. They coo the rest of the time. That’s all they do; they just want to coo and chat with each other.”Nazareth resident and chicken owner Heather Wolfe
“We have a brooder in our house, and we raise those little chickens in the brooder in the house,” Grube said. "My kids watch them, my kids take care of them.
“If our chickens are ill or they’re hurt, my girls come in a cage in my house and they recuperate because you can’t leave an injured chicken in the coop with other chickens.”
A couple folks agreed six birds as listed is just too low for sustenance, especially for those with a number of mouths to feed at home.
