This is why we needed a referendum. I had a feeling the village would not worry about the neighbors of the chicken owners losing property value. The council did not vote yet, but under the cover of the staff report is their any doubt ?
Bet they will say they could reach a compromise and go for a 25 or 30 ft setback.
When i went to the Jan. 8th council meeting it sounded like the study was still going on, and would be for weeks.

The coyotes in my neighborhood give this a big thumbs-up.

This is unbelievably stupid and I hope this plan is not adopted. I will not vote for any council candidate that supports this. My wife and I do vote in every municipal election.

This goes to show the power of the voting "Block of 4". Take note Barnett is up in April and he supports this along with Becky, Geoff and Martin. Schnell is up as well in April but has stated that she does not support any changes to the current laws. Also Becky is the one who wants this change because these are HER FRIENDS that got the tickets for violating the current law. This just makes me SICK.

It's less about controlling what your neighbors do, and more about allowing people to pursue free will in a controlled, permitted and inspected environment.

Keeping chickens is not going to lower your property value people!

@ Steve L. Thanks for letting us know that Jankowski supports chickens. I guess now will be the first time in Krajewski's era that his puppetts (Jose and Olson) will get elected. At least if they do not support chickens.

My guess is the massage and tat parlors and possibly the new adult store on Ogden are impacting property values more than chickens ever will.

@Kelly of the businesses you mentioned are they friends with Becky? From the way it appears is they just need her to ask for the votes then make a reccomendation under new business. Just like she did wih the chickens.

Please allow me to help clarify things a bit …both for myself and for the Village and the process as it relates to the upcoming discussion of our existing fowl ordinance.

To start, while I have no idea if the two outstanding violations are for “friends” of Commissioner Rheintgen the insinuation that above that there is something untoward afoot is unfortunate – and wrong. Approximately a year ago, Commissioner Rheintgen brought this issue forward as part of our planning process. At that time the balance of the Council did not believe it was significant enough of an issue to place it near the top of our priorities. This fall, we received several complaints about chickens. When we investigated, indeed we found three homeowners in violation of our existing ordinance. One homeowner came into compliance and removed the chickens the other two did not and were subsequently issued tickets. Those homeowners now have pending court dates (February, I think).

About that same time, and in response to the citations, we received numerous requests to change the ordinance. Commissioner Rheintgen raised the issue again and as has been reported, Commissioner Neustadt, Mayor Tully and myself agreed that reviewing the request from Commissioner Rheintgen made sense given the current information we had and the current circumstances.

Continued …

… Continued

The staff report, is not a recommendation. And while it may seem like splitting hairs, this is not a proposal brought by our staff - the staff report is a response to Council direction to provide the Council with information about what an ordinance that made the changes requested by Commissioner Rheintgen would look like. We also asked that some research beyond the VoDG be done on the subject. We’ll now begin to review that information.

As for the meeting on the 22nd, Mr. Enerson was correct when he thought we were beginning the study. Thank you by the way, to Wayne for contacting the Council directly, with his real name, and providing additional actual information – that is helpful. The meeting on the 22nd is designed to allow us to try and work through a subject that might take more time than a regular Council meeting. We’ve used the process before, most recently with respect to the replacement process for our ladder truck and in the past for other subjects such as open burning, annexation processes, etc.

The meeting on the 22nd will not decide any policy. It will only decide if the Council thinks there is merit in bringing changes forward. Typically, zoning related issues are sent (and they really should be) through the Plan Commission, then to the Council at which point the have a fair amount of background data as well as a fair amount of public input by way of the process itself.

Continued …

… Continued

So where do I stand? I’m working on an answer to that – I wasn’t part of the group that passed the ordinance in 1987 nor would I claim than a couple evenings of Googling would make me an expert. As a community we decided 26 years ago that we would allow our residents to raise chickens on certain size properties in our town. That size, it appears, was determined by copying a County Ordinance in effect at the time and was driven by several disputed situations between neighbors and we now have an ordinance that defines a rightful activity but in its definition prevents it from happening on most of the parcels in the Village. Unfortunately, the role of government is often to define how such disputes will be resolved. Government is always a balancing act between defending individual liberty – both the liberty for one to act and the liberty to not have the actions of one impair liberty of another.

If this issue is important to you, I’d encourage Patch readers to read the report above, contact their elected officials directly, attend the meeting on the 22nd and stay involved in the process.

Bob Barnett
Downers Grove Village Council

Hi everyone,

I wanted to make a couple of clarifications, both of which were added to the story to avoid any confusion.

1) As I stated above, the proposal in the report is essentially just a scenario for the council to consider. It isn't technically something that the staff is recommending the council approve.

2) I wrote this in a previous article, but Becky Rheintgen told Patch she did not know either women involved in code enforcement cases prior to them contacting the village and entire council. Rheintgen told me she is interested in the topic for sustainability reasons, and saw the recent code enforcement issues as another opportunity to revisit the ordinance.

Thanks,
Amanda Luevano
Editor, Downers Grove Patch

Thanks Amanda for this clarification. And thanks Steve for removing speculative comments from this thread. I was aware of this recent discussion at Council and, like other residents, will consider the information that village staff has provided.

I would like to know what time frame we are looking at for the Council to come up with the draft of what they think a NEW FAIR ordinance would be, or leave as is, worked well for 26 years.
Jan, 22 meeting. Draft released to the public middle of Feb.? ( maybe on a Mon. or Tues. so it makes that weeks paper ) Council meeting on it middle of March?

Salmonella is not currently an issues with few coops far between, but it is a serious disease. The county ordinance sounds very sensible in regards to health safety. I would prefer Downers Grove and my neighbors not be given the right to play Russian Roulette with my health because they like brown eggs and want the latest fashion accessory of the well-heeled.

What a silly useless diversion from the tax scamming going on from this bunch. Why is the Library sitting on $1.8 MILLION looking to waste it on "upgrades" ?? Give each resident a $35 REBATE instead. I bet the taxes in scam city Dixon are lower than bummersville.

Take the time to read the proposal attached to this article. While the proposal does allow for most homes to put in a chicken coop as written, it is still very restrictive to the point that your neighbor will probably not want a chicken coop smack dab in the middle of their 50- foot lot. The way this is written will make it possible, but the average person is not going to build a chicken shed in the middle of their lot, where this proposal would require it to be.

First of all, the issues of health, predators, smell, property values, and threats to your other pets are real. The supporters of chicken proliferation tend to be dismissive of opposition. Articles by the CDC, humane societies should not be ignored. Enforcement has a price tag for taxpayers. The violators of current rules got away with it for years. Neighbors tend not to turn in neighbors until the situations are extreme.
The freedom argument is rather sketchy. Political philosophers often state that you have the right to enjoy your property as long as you do not interfere with the enjoyment of others’ property. Health issues are real especially for children under 5, seniors, diabetics, chemotherapy patients, and those with immune problems. How do your property values fare when a prospect sees the chickens next door and bare ground (chickens scratch grass cover away), not to mention the potential for smell.
On Jan.22, you can bet the chicken proponents will be there. If you care, you need to be there. Emails from the pro-chicken folks easily outnumber the anti-proliferation emails. As long as apathy is rampant, so shall chickens become more rampant.

A word about Council Candidate Don Jankowski, a pro-chicken candidate for Council, who criticized me for not doing research (how little he knows) and mentioned two “studies”. I am surprised that Mr. Jankowski, who claims to have an advanced degree, cannot tell the difference between “university studies”, a term paper, and a homework assignment! One “study” he listed was a non-impartial student term paper supporting chickens and limited research to that bias and the other was a homework assignment that only gathered and compared pro-chicken ordinances. He also indicated that he would wait for Staff reports, which often include “majority” concepts.
This indicates one of two things. Mr. Jankowski is either incapable of evaluating sources of data or is willing to mislead readers to bring them to his own viewpoints. IMHO, both are indicative of someone who should not hold office.

As I previously posted, I stand by my research and I find myself again being personally attacked, by someone with initials no less. Chicken owners are just dismissive of the arguments that have been brought up nationally. I am not throwing arguments out to see what sticks, but these are arguments that have been posted across the country. Many governments do allow chickens, as does Downers Grove, and when they changed their regulations, may were more restrictive than what our Village already allows.

Carl Walsh in USA Today in “Backyard Chickens Cause Salmonella Outbreak in Dozens of States-7/5/11”
A quote from a position paper “ Chickens attract rodents: Even the cleanest coop is attractive to rats and mice who enjoy the free bedding (straw and shavings) and food. Rodents are generally viewed as pests and their presence is unwanted by chicken owners and neighbors.” The paper goes on about the conditions I have echoed (not made up). The paper is put out by Animal Place, Chicken Run Rescue, and United Poultry Concerns to name a few.

Chesapeake, Va. was going through what we are now and received a Staff report. Each department weighed in, so it wasn’t a Council majority telling top staffers what they wanted and having staff “recommend” based on political preferences. The Zoning Admin Dept opposed the ordinance due to negative affects on quality of life, noise, odors, enforcement difficulties, and concerns already listed.
(To be continued)

(continued) The Animal Enforcement recommended denial because of expected increase in complaints, difficulty capturing and impounding, transmission of disease to humans, ”Chickens in residential areas may attract undesirable wildlife including rabies vectors such as foxes, raccoons, opossums, and coyotes.”
They continue, “ Many residential dogs will not be accustomed to chickens and will recognize them as prey. They will not understand why chickens are not fair game.” Additional commentary indicated that dogs may themselves become a nuisance ( noise, attacks etc), that may result in the dogs being penalized! In Virginia, a dog that attacks poultry is put down. Obviously, the concern is for previously behaved dogs that may be penalized for the newly arrived “attractive nuisance”.
The Health Dept listed a number of diseases and concerns and suggested ways to minimize the spread. Some diseases are airborne and they suggested avoiding infected dust by keeping it damp. (Numerous articles about smell suggest that damp chicken manure is the cause of the smell associated with coops.) Apparently, you can avoid the infectious dust and risk illness or you can put up with the smell knowing you are healthier for it?
Staff had opposed the revision which would allow chicken farming on less than an acre because it was a public nuisance.
Merely arguing research and facts, If MC thinks this is a shotgun approach, it's only because these are the issues.