CLYDE — The Village of Clyde now has a bylaw in place that will allow residents to keep chickens and other “unique” animals like waterfowl or pot-bellied pigs as pets.
During their June 10 meeting, Village of Clyde councillors passed second and third reading of the urban chicken and other unique pets bylaw.
However, council only passed first and second reading on an amendment to their rates, fees and charges bylaw that would have introduced a $100 one-time application fee for each chicken coop, as well as an annual $40 unique animal permit.
Third reading on that amendment will be voted on during a special council meeting on Monday, June 17. It will be conducted via Zoom and this will be the only agenda item.
The bylaw outlines the conditions residents most abide by in order to have chickens and other unique pets.
Chickens must be provided with a coop located in the rear of their property at least 10 feet from any dwelling, provide a nest box for every one to two chickens, and ensure they have all the necessities of survival like food, water and survival.
It also requires residents to produce a licence for the keeping of chickens upon the demand of a peace officer and establishes the reasons why a licence may be revoked or refused entirely.
Roosters are prohibited, as is the keeping of chickens and other unique animals for commercial purposes (the selling of eggs and meat).
The bylaw was spurred by administration receiving some requests relating to the raising of hens and potentially waterfowl within the community.
The bylaw received first reading on April 8 with a public hearing held May 13.
Mayor Charis Aguirre said she was glad they held their public hearing and were able to answer the questions of the one resident who showed up.
After passing the urban chicken bylaw, council then had to amend the rates and fees bylaw to introduce the $100 one-time fee to apply to establish a chicken coop, as well as the $40 annual fee for a unique animal permit.
However, Coun. Danielle Dillman said she felt the $100 application fee for chickens was too high and wondered why it couldn’t be the same as other animals.
Chief administrative officer Jaye Parrent indicated the fee was higher due to the work involved in checking permits and ensuring the coops abide by the rules.
However, Dillman said she didn’t know why the village “would make such a big stink about chickens,” pointing out no one came by to see if she was adequately housing and feeding her dog.
Coun. Alex Strembesky also argued against making it a one-time fee, pointing out that every other animal requires a yearly permit.
“If we’re going to have an annual (fee) for dogs and unspecified critters, then chickens should fall under the same (rules),” he said.
Ultimately, council did not have unanimous consent to pass all three readings on the bylaw amendment, as Strembesky voted against going to third reading.
