MULGRAVE: Councillors in the Town of Mulgrave, held the first reading of their updated Land-Use By-Law, which will now put restrictions on what animals land owners can keep on their property within town limits.
Deputy Mayor Tanya Snow-Keeling cited a conflict of interest and excused herself from the council table, which left Krista Luddington, Bob Russell and Mayor Ron Chisholm, and the vote was unanimous.
The amendment, which will only allow land users to have six egg laying hens, and no other barn yard animals, was read by Mulgrave CAO David Gray during the town’s monthly regular council meeting on Dec. 6.
“Although agriculture uses including the keeping of poultry and farm animals are only permitted in the RR1 residential rural zone, keeping of up to six egg laying hens per lot is permitted in all zones,” Gray said. “The hens must be kept in an enclosure, but the enclosure must not be located in the front yard or the side yard of a lot.”
He advised residents who decide to keep poultry and farm animals passed the by-law date change, will be requested to provide a count, by species, to the building inspector in writing.
“As the number of farm animals and poultry decline over time, the residents should not replace the poultry or farm animal, other than to a maximum of six egg laying hens,” Gray said. “The replacement of other poultry including roosters, and farm animals is not permitted, and the eggs produced by the hen are for personal use only and cannot be sold.”
The second reading and public hearing, he suggested, will happen sometime in January as they need to advertise the meeting at least twice. The town’s second council meeting of the month will occur on Jan. 17.
During question period, a member of the gallery questioned council’s decision to amend the land-use by-law to only allow egg laying hens, while not allocating a grandfather clause.
When a subsequent question was asked by the woman what about meat birds, council reiterated that the by-law will only allow a resident to replace the egg laying hens.
“See with meat birds you only keep them for six weeks,” she said. “So we’re not allowed meat birds?”
“Once they’re gone, they’re gone,” Gray said in his response. “If the by-law passes.”
“Well that kind of sucks,” the woman said. “You go and look at the prices of chicken in the grocery store right now, you can’t afford to buy it.”
She said for her, someone who has cancer, the only thing she is supposed to eat is chicken and fish, which leaves her in a tough position to decide between her health and her pocketbook.
“It’s pretty crappy,” she said. “Especially for the ones that do look after their animals.”
Luddington agreed with her and suggested no one is disputing the fact.
“I think it’s one of those things that have been going on for so long,” the councillor said. “And my heart goes out to anybody who is in your position, who takes care of it; it’s one of those things that we can’t make rules for some and not for everybody, and it’s not an easy decision.”
The town’s mayor advised it may be a case where it’s been one bad apple that ruined the whole batch.
“We sent by-law officers in, and nothing changed,” Chisholm said. “They figured they were above it; you just get to a point where something has to be done.”
Gray explained anyone can make their feelings known at the public hearing and council would take them into consideration in making their decision.
“Unfortunately, the by-law has to apply to everybody evenly,” he said. “Certainly feel free to give your viewpoint at that public meeting.”