By MARK MCGEE
mmcgee@bedforcountypost.com
The Shelbyville City Council is trying to be fair to fowl owners within the city limits.
During a special called workshop last week, council members reviewed the lengthy updated Animal Control Ordinances as presented by Assistant Police Chief Brian Crews.
The council plans to consider the changes, especially those dealing with poultry and fowl in Chapter 3 of the ordinances
Council members present for the meeting were Henry Feldhaus, Marilyn Ewing, Gary Haile, William Christie, and Bobby Turnbow. Stephanie Isaacs was absent.
The ordinances would not become effective until council members voted at the regular November meeting.
“Chapter 3 would prohibit the owning or possessing of any roosters within the city,” Crews said. “The recommendation is consistent with what other cities have adopted.
“Quite frankly, common sense tells us, permitting roosters in the city also permits noise. Our division does does not believe we can adequately address noise complaints from roosters if roosters are permitted in the city.”
According to the proposed ordinance, it would be unlawful for owners having care or custody of any fowl to allow it to be running at large on any private property or on any public area. Owners would be cited for a nuisance.
It would be unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any fowl in areas zoned R-4 (high density residential) or MHP (mobile home park) or any other town home, multiple family or similar units.
The impoundment of fowls is a concern since the animal control shelter does not hold fowl. Such an expansion would add expense in construction as well as the need for additional animal control personnel.
Those who own fowl other than roosters will be required to construct a coop that would be clean and sanitary and provide adequate protection.
The coop would require a minimum of four-square feet of floor area and could not be less than 18 inches high. The coop must be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. A coop could not be constructed in the front yard.
Crews cited several “antiquated” ordinances regarding domestic animals, particularly those dealing with the tethering or chaining of dogs.
Council member Christie strongly advocated the abolishment of chains.
“I just don’t like to see a dog chained,” Christie said.
Under the proposed ordinances, an animal may be “exclusively restrained by a chain or tether provided it is at least 10 feet in length with swivels on both ends.”
The chain or tether should not weigh an unreasonable weight as to restrict the movement of the animal or cause them, pain in any way.
Any chain or tether must be attached to a “properly fitting collar or harness worn by the animal.”
