Loading...
8. Ordinance 1705 - Amendment - Animal Regulations - 1st ReadingCharles A. Harball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 201 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 �il:�li�Cl�W Mayor Tammi Fisher and Kalispell City Council Charles Harball, City Attorney Jane Howington, City Manager Tel 406.758.7709 Fax 406.758.7771 charball@kalispell.com Ordinance No. 1705 — an Ordinance Amending the City of Kalispell Code That Regulates Fowl — First Reading November 7, 2011— Regular Council Meeting BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 1705 amends the existing city code at Article 1 of Chapter 4 that provides the general regulation of domestic animals in the city. The City Council has considered the testimony in favor of permitting ducks, as well as written testimony complaining about the smells and vermin generated by fowl kept on private property within the city. The amendment adds ducks to the current limitation of keeping no more than 15 chickens on a parcel in the city. The specific limitations are that 1) only chickens and ducks are allowed to be kept on property within the city and these are limited in total to fifteen per parcel, and 2) no roosters or drakes are allowed, and 3) the fowl must be kept in a manner that does not cause adverse impact to neighboring property owners. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council give consideration to Ordinance No. 1705 on first reading. FISCAL I ACTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the City from these proposed amendments. Respectfully submitted, Char es Harball, City Attorney i- ane Howington, City Mana J ,N0 WHEREAS, the Kalispell Municipal Ordinances regarding the regulation of fowl kept within the City permits only the keeping of chickens; and WHEREAS, a city resident who keeps ducks on her property testified before the City Council that there is little distinction between the impact of ducks and chickens on land use; and WHEREAS, City Council considered the testimony in favor of permitting ducks, as well as written testimony complaining about the smells and vermin generated by fowl kept on private property within the city; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to amend the Municipal Code regulating fowl in the City to allow ducks and to mitigate the factors that create nuisances that have been identified as reflected in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Municipal Code codified at Chapter 4 of the Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by this reference. SECTION II. The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to recodify this Ordinance. SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. Tammi Fisher Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk D.Limitations on Fowl: No fowl shall be permitted other than chickens and ducks which shall be permitted only under the following limitations: l . No roosters or drakes shall be kept or maintained within the City, 2. No more than fifteen (15) total fowl l shall be kept or maintained upon a parcel or lot, 3. Property owners must maintain the fowl ehiekens in a manner that does not cause adverse impact to neighboring property owners. Potential negative impacts on adjacent properties include offensive odors and the unusual presence of insects, rodents or feathers. Failure to maintain the property in accordance with these requirements shall be considered a violation of this section. Diane Groves un436 WhAve West Ikalispell, Mt. Madam Mayor and Council Members, Three years ago and after checking with city officals, I purchased some chickens. Not thinking there was much difference between the two I also purchased some ducks. I had no trouble with neighbors and the neighborhood children enjoyed visiting them on occasion. My next door neighbor even feed them her scraps and purchased a water heater for their pool! The ducks we purchased in March of this year are just starting to lay. We've invested quite a bit of .............. On Monday, Oct. 3 Officer Macy visisted our home on 10' Ave. West and handed me a copy of "City Ordinance 4-1 Keeping of Livestock In City Prohibited, while informing me that a neighbor had complained I had ducks. He said he didn't know who the neighbor was or what the complaint was but that it didn't matter because ducks were against the city ordinance and apparently that is all the reason a person would need. He also said he would confirm the fact that they were so quiet he had to actually look around to the back yard to be sure they were there. The Friday before we had given two drakes (male ducks) to Kate at the All Mosta Ranch (an animal rescue). When informing her about what had happened on monday she was not only upset but said shis, would confirm the fact that the ducks were in a sufficient area and being well taken care of. I have included her number at the end of this. I have since spoken to several city officials and with encouragement from some of them have decided to address this council. I am requesting an immediate stay to this ordinance until the council can consider my additional request to amend the City Ordinance 4-1 and naming poulty to be allowed within city limits, including ducks. Ducks help the environment by eating insects, mosquitos and slugs. They can clean a pond of overgrowth and feed the fish at the same time and they're eggs are higher in protien than chickens. They never have lice or other bugs, supply down for our warmth and have good dispositions. It is my hope that this request will be given serious consideration as we have cared for and invested in these animals and do not want to see them destroyed. Contrary to one officials comment ducks are not simply a sport to be hunted and shot and in our opinion it would be a cruelty to animals to destroy them. We have until Nov. 3 to find homes for them and hope that you will consider this date and thus prevent us from having a financial loss as well as the heartbreak of losing our ducks. Sincerely, Dianne Groves a& /)-) / ,,4 e,"e, October 30, 2011 Re: Ordinance #1698 Regulation of chickens To: City Council, Mayor Fisher and Mr. Charles Harball Dear All, We are writing again in regard to City Ordinance #1698. We have attached the first letter of October 20,2011. I (Adriana) emailed it to twhite()city of kalispell.com under the advisement of Mr. Charles Harball following a phone conversation with him. We were out of town during the council work shop on Monday October 24th and were hopeful our first letter would shed more light on the topic. Upon returning from vacation we read the article in the Daily Inter Lake "Ducks may get reprieve" dated Wednesday October 26, 2011. We do not think you all understand the negative impact and seriousness of this situation. Apparently our letter was not read prior to the work shop. We have lived at our present residence for over twenty years. Diane Groves has lived next door for three years. During Diane's first year she acquired 3 ducks & 4 chickens. She asked me (Adriana) if we would be bothered by them. I told her "I was not thrilled about them and if they began to smell I would not like it but go ahead and try it." Over the past three years Diane has added more ducks & chickens. Last spring the count as up to 18 total® 12 ducks & 6 chickens! We have not been happy about the situation all summer. I (Adriana) have told Diane they smell horrible, are too noisy, the mice situation was getting out of control and the flies were disgusting. Our landscaping is being compromised due to the feathers and debris. I have given her written information on raising Fowl. I told her ducks were not allowed in the ordinance. She has made one concession this summer. The ducks & chickens were let outside at 7:30 or 8:00am instead of 6:00am. It is an escalating unhealthy bad situation. We have never had mice until the past two years. We have killed over a dozen this summer in our garage and now they are getting into our house. Diane and her husband have told me (Adriana) they have a huge problem with mice. Several of the neighbors are also having mice issues. We do not want rats (Diane said she saw one in her wood pile). The huge compost piles in the back northwest corner of her property are stinky and a perfect nesting spot for mice & rats. We do not live in the city to have a barn yard 10 ft. from our bedroom window. Furthermore, we are certain if this was happening right next door to all of you your support of a little farming industry would be far less than desirable. Perhaps after reading our letter(s) and looking at all the facts less of council's time would be wasted. Ordinance #1698 needs toning down not adding to it. Sincerely, Randy & Adriana Saunier 406-755-8242 October 20, 2011 Re: Ordinance # 1698 Regulation of chickens To: City Council, Mayor Fisher and Mr. Charles Harball Thank you for revisiting the City Ordinance #1698 (the regulation of chickens within the city code dated May 2, 2011). After living next door to Diane Groves who presently owns 8 ducks & 8 chickens we can tell you first hand the current ordinance allowing 15 chickens is way too many fora 50 ft. x 142 ft. city lot. Diane's fowl are kept in a dog run/pen 10 ft. from our bedroom window. Many careful considerations must be thought through before allowing Ordinance 1698 to even continue. We can no longer tolerate the stench, mice, rats, flies, noise and feathers/debris on our property. The mice have become a huge problem for us as well as our neighbors. statedWe have tried to be good neighbors but this is impacting us in a negative way. As in the • • D. The limitations on Fowl. No fowl shall be permitted other than chickens which shall be permitted only .•. e following limitations. Propertyowners section.cause adverse impact to neighboring property owners. Potential negative impact on adjacent properties include offensive odors and the unusual presence of insects or feathers. Failure to maintain property in accordance with these requirements shall be considered a violation of this Sincerely, Randy & Adriana Saunier 424 10t" Ave. West Kalispell, MT 755-8242 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 12, MISSOULA MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "KEEPING LIVESTOCK AND FOWL" AMENDING SECTIONS 6.12.010 AND 6.12.020 TO ALLOW CITY RESIDENTS TO HAVE UP TO SIX FEMALE CHICKENS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS AND CREATING SECTIONS 6.12.022 AND 6.12.024 ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR VIOLATIONS, NOTICES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PENALTIES. SECTION 6.12.022 AND 6.12.024 MISSOULA MUNICIPAL CODE ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS • •: . Chapter 6.12 KEEPING LIVESTOCK AND FOWL A. It is unlawful for any person who is the owner, keeper or temporary custodian of any chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, livestock, domestic or exotic, to allow the same to be at large within the city limits by being off of the premises owned or leased by the owner, keeper or temporary custodian of the chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, livestock, domestic or exotic. B. It is unlawful for any person within the city to keep or maintain in an unclean or unhealthful state or condition any house, barn, shed, pen or other structure in which any chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, bird, livestock, domestic or exotic, held in captivity is kept. All places where any chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, bird, livestock, domestic or exotic, is kept within the city shall at all times be subject to inspection for cleanliness, health and sanitation purposes by the city health officer, city animal control officer , or by the city police department. C. It is the duty of all persons keeping a chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, bird, livestock, domestic or exotic, to keep and maintain wherein the same are kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and in case any place where a chicken, goose, duck, turkey or other domestic fowl, rabbit, bird, livestock, domestic or exotic is kept is not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, the city health officer may declare the same a nuisance and abate it as such. D. All animals kept within the city limits shall be provided with sufficient food and water as is necessary as determined by at least one animal care expert consulted by a city health department employee or any animal control officer or police officer to meet the daily needs and requirements of the animals for a healthful existence. An "animal care expert" shall include veterinarians, ranchers or outfitters possessing at least five years' experience treating, caring for or raising livestock animals. Any individual desiring to contest a determination made pursuant to this section may appeal to the city animal control board for a review of the determination. Any appeal must be submitted within three days of the animal owner's receipt of notice of the determination. Section 2 6.12.020 Prohibitions concerning keeping of livestock and domestic fowl. A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any chicken, goose, duck, turkey, other domestic fowl, swine, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, cattle, or any other livestock, exotic or domestic, or to keep or maintain any pen, yard or enclosure for such animals within the corporate limits of the city on a parcel of land that is one acre or less in size. This section shall not apply to real property annexed into the city after January 1, 1989; unless and until any keeping of livestock otherwise unlawful pursuant to this chapter has ceased or been abandoned for at least two years. After termination of the keeping of a type of livestock that is prohibited by this section has occurred for at least two years, any keeping of that type of animal that is unlawful pursuant to this chapter shall not be restarted at that location. Further, this section shall not apply to persons engaged in the transportation of such animals to market or to participate in an exhibition, event or parade or a Missoula County Fair at the Missoula County Fairgrounds. B. This section also does not apply to the keeping of any of the above -identified fowl, animals or livestock at the Missoula County Fairgrounds, so long as the activity is authorized and supervised by the Missoula County Fair Board. C. Any house, barn, shed, pen or other structure in which a chicken, goose, duck, turkey, or other domestic fowl, or bird (other than birds purchased as house pets through a commercial store) is kept shall not be located inside of or within twenty feet of a structure used for human habitation or within fifty feet of any real property line. Any house, barn, shed, pen or other structure in which a chicken, goose, duck, turkey, or other domestic fowl, or bird is kept, which may now be, or which may hereafter be placed within twenty feet of a human habitation, or within fifty feet of a real property line shall be removed there from, to a distance of more than twenty feet from such human habitation and not within fifty feet from any property line. The city health officer, animal control officer or police department is given authority to order such removal, upon written notice of not less than ten days, or such further, time as such officer deems reasonable. In case such house, barn, shed, pen or other structure is not removed within the time set in such notice for the removal thereof, such officer may proceed to remove the same. D. A rabbit or rabbits may be kept in cages or other structures in an area that is within or adjacent to a rabbit owner's personal residence as long as the rabbit cages or structures located outside the rabbit owner's premises are not within thirty feet of another structure or dwelling unit used for human habitation that is not owned by the rabbit owner or within twenty feet of any common real property line between private property owners. There shall be no common property line restriction if the adjacent property on the other side of a common property line is public -owned land. E. It is unlawful for the owner, keeper or custodian of rabbits to possess at the same premises at the same time more than five rabbits that are more than six weeks old, unless the real property is one -quarter acre or larger in size. F. The prohibition to keeping chickens in this section does not apply to the keeping of up to 6 female chickens while the animals are kept in such a manner that the following standards are complied with: 1. The chickens must be kept on a single-family parcel(s), and chickens may be kept on a parcel(s) under one ownership with more than one dwelling if all residents and the owner consent in writing to allowing the chickens on the property. When chickens are kept on a multi -dwelling parcel(s) the owner of the chickens shall keep a copy of the signed approval document for inspection upon request by animal control personnel. 2. The owner must obtain an annual permit from the City Treasurer. The permit shall be $15. 3. The chickens shall be provided with a covered, predator -proof chicken house that is thoroughly ventilated, of sufficient size to admit free movement of the chickens, designed to be easily accessed, cleaned and maintained by the owners and be at least 2 square feet per chicken in size. 4. No chicken house shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential structure occupied by someone other than the chicken owner, custodian, or keeper. 5. The chickens shall be shut into the chicken house at night, from sunset to sunrise. 6. During daylight hours the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken house and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs and other predators. 7. Stored feed must be kept in a rodent- and predator -proof container 8. It is unlawful for the owner, custodian, or keeper of any chicken to allow the animal(s) to be a nuisance to any neighbors, including but not limited to: noxious odors from the animals or their enclosure; and noise of a loud and persistent and habitual nature. Animal Control will determine whether or not a nuisance exists on a case -by -case basis. 9. Enforcement Upon receiving a complaint of a possible violation Animal Control will investigate, determine if a violation exists and when appropriate leave a notice of violation and order to take corrective action with the owner, custodian, or keeper and provide them with written notice of the violations that require correction. Animal Control will revisit the owner's address 10 days or more after the notice of violation is issued. If the owner, custodian, or keeper has failed to comply with the ordinance, Animal Control may issue a citation to the owner, custodian or keeper for failure to comply with any applicable requirement of this section. 6.012.022 Notice of Violation and Order To Take Corrective Action. When Animal Control determines that a violation of the code has occurred, Animal Control may issue written notice to the owner, custodian or keeper, either personally or by certified mail. Such notice shall specify the provision or provisions of this chapter alleged to have been violated along with a short and plain statement of the facts that constitute the violation. The notice shall include an "order to take corrective action" requiring compliance within a reasonable time as stated in the order. 6.012.024 Penalty --Fines. The City of Missoula Municipal Court judge shall assess animal violation fines as set forth in this chapter. An owner, custodian, or keeper of an animal who is found guilty of any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined an amount not less than twenty-five dollars or more than five hundred dollars. Failure to comply with a properly issued Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action shall be counted as a separate offense from a citation issued after the compliance date described in the order. Each day an offense exists shall constitute a separate offense pursuant to this chapter. Section 5 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and words thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or words have been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason this ordinance should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the remaining ordinance provisions will be in full force and effect. PASSED by a 8 Ayes, 4 Nays, 0 Abstain, 0 Absent vote, and APPROVED by the Mayor this 17 Ih day of December, 2007. ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Martha L. Rehbein /s/ John Engen Martha L. Rehbein John Engen City Clerk Mayor Theresa White From: Amy Kenfield [1997bjnamy@live.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:02 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Re: Chickens and ducks attract MICE and RATS To all concerned citizens of Kalispell regarding 1698 , I have had nothing but frustration and concern after a new neighbor, Diane Gove moved in a couple of years ago. She brought in chickens, ducks, compost piles, trash piles with plastic and hundreds of gallon milk jugs! Without intention she also brought in mice that feed on the chicken and duck feed and also Diane had mentioned that she possibly saw rats! The smell is horrid and the constant noise is extremely annoying. My family moved back into our home in early July after having renters in our home for 10 months. We were shocked to find a massive mouse infestation in our garage. The mice were so bad they went through 4 boxes of decon In less than a week! I had never had a mouse problem before in the 10 years I have lived at this 10th avenue address! Now because of this infestation we were forced to replace hundreds of dollars of insulation and sheetrock and were unable to remove all of it because the problem went on and on! About three days after my husband and I removed the infestation I got extremely sick with a bad fever and horrible sweats my thought was it was from the mice. There is still a rancid urine like odor in our garage that we tried to remove with bleach. We have also seen mice running across Sauniers lawn towards the Goves chickens and ducks. Ade Saunier mentioned after we moved back that she was having mouse problems, I relayed to her mine and soon after Sally my neighbor behind me also mentioned having a mouse problem. I have never seen mice like this in my life! My parents had chickens, turkeys, pigs, and goats and there was never any problem with mice. Mice carry hundreds of diseases and rats are even worse, so to think that so many of my neighbors have had mouse problems and to see them out running around in the daylight is a major issue! I am tired of the allowing of these farm animals in town at my and my families expense financially and health wise! Animals like chickens and ducks should be kept out side of town, not in city limits where it could potentially turn into an epidemic! Thank you for taking the time to read this and understand the city health is in your hands! Sincerely, Amy Kenfield 1 Theresa White From: Amy Kenfield [amouslynn@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:03 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Re: mice from the chickens From: amouslynnC&hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:42 PM To: twhite(&cityofkalispell.com Subject: Re: mice from the chickens From: amouslynn('Ohotmail.com Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: twhite(a)cityofkalispell.com Subject: mice from the chickens We have had a horrible problem in our neighborhood with mice infesting homes and garages I know of two other neighbors that have had them in their houses and we have had them in our garage it was so bad that we had to tear out sheetrock and insulation to get rid of them and the smell of urine and crap. I believe that the mice are coming from one of the neighbors that has has ducks and chickens as well as mulch piles in their yard I feel that is is very irresponsible to allow this to continue and put our families and homes in harms way of these little disease carrying rodents! From: Donna Worth [worth.donna@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:17 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Duck Problem Dear City Council: I am writing this letter in favor of the neighbor for the following reasons: 1. Ducks lay eggs for about 2 months out of the year, maybe 15 eggs by each duck. There is no money to be made from duck eggs at their laying rate. 2. 1 have witnessed the care given these ducks. They are kept in a dog run adjacent to the neighbor's fence. It is a dirty pen, with old milk jugs half filled with water, laying all about. Feathers are gathered around the adjoinging fence. The fencing is not private, but rather wire, so the pen is in the neighbor's yard as an eye sore. 3. The pen smells. The pen is not taken care of or cleaned, especially for raising produce to sell. The waste from the ducks is not cleaned up, but rather saved for gardening. 4. The pen is too small for the number of fowl. The complaint about these ducks is justified. Please investigate the matter properly for the neighbor, and the neighborhood. Donna Worth Theresa White From: Saunier, Rena [Rena.Saunier@fnf.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:03 AM To: Theresa White Subject: Ducks, Geese, Chickens --it's all foul.... Greetings Council Members: I wanted to voice my concerns/opinions about the City Ordinance allowing foul in city limits as someone who lived next to a property in which foul resided. I also urge each and every one of you to really put yourselves in the shoes of the public when determining whether or not you are going to change the ordinance/rule already in effect with regard, as I am quite certain none of you would want your home to be affected by the following nuisances.... I lived at 424 1 Oth Ave West for almost a year after Diane starting "raising" foul. I immediately • • it disgusting, inconsiderate and most of ^ time border line negligent. On multiple occasions I saw my Mom• • the animals to get their headsback thru the tryingchain link fence as they were to eat the grass,growing outside of .a They would stick their little heads thru the squares and then not be able to get them back out. ^ pool was always filthy, the pen they lived in was quite small in my opinior the garage in my folks back yard and would walk out to leave in the morning around 8:00 am with my nose plugged even in the winter. My mom bought Diane a heater for the and always dirty with feces and feathers. The smell was hideous. I parked my car next to ter dish since their water kept freezing, she really wanted it to work for Diane to raise these birds and have ^••s but she also realized that Diane was not b- • as responsible as needed for what she was trying to •• This summer we didn't BBQ there or recreate in the backyard as the smell was overwhelming and the insects/flies were out of control. My parents spoke to Diane about cleaning it up and had to request consideration from her when she let the birds out as they were VERY loud in the morning. The bedroom window is directly next to the fence and usually has an air conditioner in it in the summer months. This summer the window had to remain closed due to the smell and noise. And then the mice came ...... if you have not taken the time to drive by this location and see for yourselves the lack of consideration Diane has displayed by how she maintains her yard, the birds & her junk then I suggest you do and again ask yourselves if you would want to live next door to her. When the mice started coming in the house and garage it was the last straw. The potential health risks associated with having mice not to mention what they ruin/destroy was enough to FINALLY make my parents realize this woman was never going to be considerate of those around her. She has not taken the steps to keep the mice away even when repeatedly asked to take part in putting out decon, and the problem is coming from her yard. She has told my Mom she would talk to her husband about it but not enough effort has been made to correct the problem she created. 1 As a tax payer I am deeply disturbed that the City is taking valuable time/resources to rethink this ordinance; time that I believe could be spent on a number of other existing problems. The rule was written, the public voted and then when the public asked for it to be enforced the Council decides to have a "workshop" to rethink whether or not the rule needs to be amended to help the party violating it? Really is that how this works? Frustrated ..... I think the rule should have been enforced and if Diane wanted to appeal it or ask that it be revisited she should be required to adhere to it first and then provide viable feedback as to how/why it should be changed, not the other way around. If I can provide any more detailed information about what I observed I am happy to do so. Otherwise I really hope that when you discuss whether or not this ordinance should be changed you realize the ordinance is not the problem and encourage this "small/local farmer" to treat her property accordingly, like a small local farm by maintaining it the way it should be maintained and giving the creatures she is raising a proper living environment. I truly believe if Diane had been responsible and considerate with her "business" this would not be an issue right now. Thank you for your time- Theresa White From: Francie Lipp [francielipp@montanasky.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:50 PM To: Theresa White Subject: Fw: Ordinance# 1698 Regulation of chickens ----- Original Message ----- From: Francie Lipp Re:Ordinance 1698 Regulation of chickens To: City Council, Mayor Fisher and Mr. Charles Harball Dear All, I am writintg this letter in regards to the problem of the chickens and ducks located on 10th Ave. West. I have personally seen this situation myself and on several occasions. This is not a healthy situation! 1 was born and raised on a farm with many types of livestock to care for, including raising 300 chickens a year. We kept a strict cleaning and feeding regimen. This is essential as chickens and ducks may carry lice, mites and parasites in their feces and feathers. These are diseases that can be trasmitted to humans. The location is not appropiate for this type of a small farm operation. The fowl are fed raw food (attracting disease carrying mice) and the feeding tank is right up against the shared fence. The feed is not contained in a mouse/rat proof container. The fowl are free to roam on the owners property leaving feces wherever they wander. There is a reason why livestock are not located near your home .... it is unsafe! I am very concerned this is being allowed in city limits. This ordinance needs to be looked at carefully with an emphasis on a healthly living environement. Please analyze other cities. You will discover most have at least a 50 foot set back for these type of animals and most limit it to just a couple of chickens. This is done for a good reason.... sanitation! How would you like this mess next to you. Please use your common sense when addressing this issue. Thank -you for your time. Francie Lipp Nick Russin 752-0259 23 Windward Loop, Kalispell, Mt.