County of Brant Council delayed a decision on residential chickens but will continue the public consultation process in regards to developing a by-law to permit backyard hens during their Planning and Development committee meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
During the meeting, the planning committee discussed possible regulations for backyard chickens, most notably about public health and water source contamination concerns.
“Public health concerns have been attributed to keeping chickens in residential areas, including risk of infectious diseases such as, avian influenza (AI), salmonella, exposure to contaminated environments, and transmission of zoonotic illnesses,” read the report. “Additionally, keeping chickens in residential areas poses threats to municipal and private drinking water sources. Prohibitions to protect drinking water sources will be considered as part of regulations.”
Jessica Kitchen, planner for the County’s policy planning division, explained if approved, that even one chicken in a wellhead protection area, could be a threat to drinking water sources and should be prohibited.
“While there may be a safe or low number of chickens that could potentially be kept in the wellhead protection areas, from a purely analytical standpoint any number of chickens, even one, does represent a threat and this threat does increase based on as the number of chickens within these areas increases,” she said.
Kitchen showed a map of the County, specifically highlighting areas of potential concerns and constraints in regards to source water protection areas, wellhead protection areas and areas with high nitrate levels.
“To alleviate any potential threats, as well as to continue to protect municipal drinking water sources and alleviate potential equity and enforcement issues, it has been suggested through this report that chickens be prohibited within source water protection areas,” she said. “That will most likely specifically relate to both Paris and St. George. It should be mentioned as well, that drinking water threats could exist in the non-urban residential areas. …Private wells will also need to be considered for protection, so setbacks will need to be considered as well as placement of coops.”
Noting that they would all be personally liable if drinking water was contaminated, councillors Steve Howes and Lukas Oakley, touched on the chickens that currently exist within the County, as well as how they would be regulated and what kind of enforcements would be needed to mitigate threats.
Kitchen acknowledged that it would be difficult to enforce chicken regulations and that the burden would be on enforcement officers to mitigate threats, while Greg Bergeron, director of Enforcement and Regulatory Services, noted that currently the system is complaint generated.
“If we’re expecting our by-law folks to actively monitor and go around to ensure that there aren’t any chickens or one chicken in these protected areas …that is going to put a huge burden on your team who is already to the max,” added councillor John Pierce. “…I don’t think that’s possible for you to do that and that’s just reality, I don’t think you have enough staff. You could probably double or triple your staff and it would still be a difficult task to do.”
Councillor Robert Chambers brought up the setback considerations regarding chicken enclosures and manure storage for those on private well systems.
“If one chicken will bring down the whole town of Paris and St. George, a bunch of chickens in the village of Burford on private systems, which is an area that has high nitrates to begin with, may not be a good idea for Burford or Scotland, or Glen Morris, or any other Hamlet that is a condensed a populated area with private wells where chickens pose a threat to their drinking water.”
Kitchen said that it would depend on the size of the lot.
“Our understanding is that the protective setback for private wells should be somewhere around 100 feet from the private well, so it would really depend on that circumstance, and it would really come down to the size of the lot that an individual has,” she said. “…So it really does vary in that context. There could be potential for some landowners to have chickens and maybe reasonably have them located far enough away from a private well, but again, that’s a bit contextual and it’s a bit property-by-property based.”
Councillor Christine Garneau asked what would happen to those who have non-compliant birds already and if they would have to be surrendered.
“If it’s brought to our attention, we can certainly deal with properties that are non-compliant,” said Bergeron. “I keep hearing through these various committees that there are some, and we’ve had complaints in the past where we’ve been effectively able to work with the residents to have the chickens removed. We would take the same approach and give the residents the reasonable opportunity to come into compliance.”
Councillor John Bell said that due to the limitations between urban and non-urban residential areas, it would be in the best interest to not go forward with allowing backyard hens.
“I think we should step back and say why are we doing this? Is this the best use of our staff?” he said. “Even if we went through this, we can see a wall of by-law enforcement issues and planning issues coming our way. I think we’re making absolutely the wrong decision. If we were to proceed in this way, I will not support the motion.”
Councillor David Miller noted that in the staff report, it mentioned the social benefits of chickens as far as reducing food costs, however he questioned if four chickens would make a difference.
“I honestly don’t think with four chickens, you’re going to save enough money on eggs to justify all the care that goes into doing that,” he said. “So looking at all the risks, I don’t believe they’re going to outweigh the small benefits of going ahead with a by-law. I think if we really wanted to do something about food costs and sustainable food and lifestyle, we’d be better off putting our money into a community garden. So, I’m not going to support the recommendation to continue on with this.”
Councillor Jennifer Kyle said that while she isn’t necessarily for or against backyard chickens, she would like to see something put in place to control those who already have chickens rather than having nothing at all.
“One thing we haven’t really talked about tonight is biosecurity, and that was one of the main impetus for bringing this forward originally. We have a number of chickens that are around the County that we have no knowledge of where those are and if in the event of something like the avian flu outbreak, we have no way of connecting with those owners in order to put those biosecurity protocols in place,” she said. “I would like to see some sort of something put around them [chickens] so that we have some control. Whether that’s rules that allow people to have them and make it easier for our by-law, or whoever’s enforcing it, to deal with ones that are not compliant, or we don’t allow them and we shut them down. I think there needs to be some rules. …I am concerned about the water, but I’m not confident we’ve come to a solution for the biosecurity threat either.”
Oakley agreed that they would have more compliance if they instated guidelines.
“I don’t feel like we’ve addressed the biosecurity angle,” he said. “I think we will breed more compliance and more buy-in and have a safer community if we put guidelines and rails around this rather than a blanket prohibition. I think you generally get more buy-in when you have rules and allow it through a process rather than just blanket bans.”
Councillor Chambers said that there is currently a process in place for residents to apply to have backyard chickens.
“They can make an application to have backyard chickens and go through the planning process and prove to the planning committee and the council that their application is warranted. If they can meet setbacks, if they’re in a particular area that is not in a wellhead, and those kinds of things, that is already in place now,” he said. “So there is a mechanism for people to have backyard chickens if they want to go through the process of going through the expense of proving that they’re not going to impact things.”
Howes said that while they learned a lot during the meeting, given that the public consultation process had just started, he didn’t think it was fair to completely kill the plan, and councillors Brian Coleman and Garneau agreed that they should continue on with the public consultation process before making a final decision.
Chambers then moved an amendment that would allow staff to continue with the public consultation process, and to provide information to the public about the health concerns regarding backyard hens.
He also requested that the four operative clauses within the recommendation be voted on separately.
Council approved the following clauses, that RPT-0177-24 be received as information and, furthermore, that the Engage Brant process continue by receiving information from and providing information to the citizens of the County of Brant regarding residential chickens.
After approving the above-mentioned recommendations, Council defeated the following clauses, that the Committee provide direction for a new draft of the “Backyard Hen By-law” for further consideration and, furthermore, that County staff be directed to undertake amendments to the County’s Animal Control By-Law 174-10 and Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 61-16.
Councillors Kyle, Garneau, Oakley, Howes and MacAlpine voted in favour of providing direction on the new draft, while Councillors Garneau and Oakley voted in favour of the amendments for the animal control and comprehensive by-laws.
In the end, the planning committee decided to wait until the EngageBrant survey has been completed, and until a new report with a summary of the collective information is submitted before council will make any further decisions on the matter.
