The North Judson Town Council is willing to consider an urban chicken ordinance, but first, they’re asking for a petition with 300 residents’ signatures. Council member John Rowe proposed the petition Monday, to gauge the amount of support that exists out in the community and not just among people showing up at council meetings. “If the town wants something, the town can speak and want that,” he said. “If it’s the entire town, then we should change it. That’s how this is meant to be. That’s why we’re here. It isn’t personal. It shouldn’t be our personal feelings.”
For the petition to be accepted by the town council, the 300 residents who sign it must live within the North Judson town limits, be at least 18 years of age, and provide their address or another way of verifying their residency. If the 300 signatures are obtained by August 31, council members will then begin discussing the specifics of the ordinance, such as permit fees, space requirements, and limits to the number of chickens at a particular home. The town council narrowly voted to accept Rowe’s proposal to request the petition, with members Jane Ellen Felchuk and Wendy Hoppe opposing the measure.
Resident Sarah Burkett will be responsible for gathering the necessary signatures. She has been leading the renewed push for an urban chicken ordinance in North Judson, after the town council decided to more strictly enforce the existing animal ordinance. That would have forced Burkett to remove her chickens, but council members have backed down from that decision, at least temporarily.
While Burkett says her chickens were grandfathered in six years ago, there’s an ongoing debate about whether that still applies to the chickens she has now. Council President Wendy Hoppe said Monday that wasn’t the council’s intention at the time the decision was made. “I can say because I sat on that board, and I can honestly say it was said it would be grandfathered until the time the chickens were deceased. . . . If you read the thing, that’s how it was.”
Burkett’s father and landlord Steve Ransom disagreed. “I’ve got an attorney that will argue with you on that,” he said.
“Well, Todd’s going to cite what he wants, but let me cover this now,” responded Town Attorney Justin Schramm. “I haven’t covered this yet because there’s a very convoluted, long, complex, legal argument when it comes to grandfather clauses. I’ve heard this term now for a month, ‘grandfather, grandfather, grandfather.’ A grandfather clause is built into an ordinance or resolution when it is written.”
Schramm said that’s not what happened in this case. “It’s not on that resolution, and it’s not of legal effect,” he said. “They shouldn’t have done that to you. It was bad that they did that to you. But if it didn’t make it into that final resolution or ordinance, my position and my reading has indicated that it is not a legally-enforceable grandfather clause.” However, he pointed out that Burkett is not in violation of the ordinance because the ordinance has not been fully enforced.
