The chicken question: Give it a fair hearing
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 1, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Chickens or no chickens? That is the question.
A group of residents has asked Connellsville City Council to change its zoning ordinance to allow for urban chicken coops as an easy way to provide organic eggs for their families. Under the city's current zoning ordinance, backyard chicken farming is only permitted by special exception in highway commercial “C2” areas or industrial “M1” areas.
But the residents say urban chicken farming is growing in popularity — it's even in bigger cities such as Pittsburgh and New York.
If local zoning is changed to allow for urban chickens, pen sizes would be mandated and the number of chickens would be set.
City council and Mayor Charles Matthew voiced concern over the request, citing noise and health-related issues. The city's health board and health officer this week reinforced those concerns.
On the other hand, chickens provided for residents both sustenance and, conceivably, savings to boot. In upholding the public's interest, government has no mandate to simply say “No” without any due diligence.
Sure, there are concerns. In some city neighborhoods, homes are situated close together and backyards are small. Neighbors may not want to view a chicken pen when sitting outside enjoying a summer barbecue.
There's also the question of enforcement. Urban chicken farming investigations would be added to the city health/zoning officer's list of duties.
The residents' request deserves the city council's fair review, not a snap judgment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- The case of Beaver County Sheriff George David: He should be jailed pending trial
- The Obama/Biden visit: Oh, the irony
- The problem with BNY Mellon: It wears blinders
- Voter fraud: Multiple-voting Melowese Richardson gets a federal pass
- Saturday essay: Deck of dreams
- Springtime in Connellsville: A destination we call home
- Vladimir the corrupt: Up the sanctions against Putin
- Paying the ObamaCare premium
- The Nevada standoff