Residents wanting to comment on a proposed ordinance in Oxford Village to allow for the keeping of chickens on residential properties will be able to do so at the Tuesday, Sept. 10 council meeting.

A public hearing on the subject, followed by a first reading of the draft language, is scheduled for 6:30 p.m.

In creating the proposed ordinance, village attorney Bob Davis told council “large and small communities” were “canvassed” regarding their chicken ordinances.

Based on what he found, Davis said, “If you do it right, it works out well. If you don’t do it right, it doesn’t work out so well.”

Under the proposed ordinance, residents living in detached, single-family homes would be allowed to have up to four chickens “for personal use only and not for any business or commercial use.” Residents would only be permitted to have hens. Roosters would be “prohibited.”

The chickens would be required to “remain within, at all times, a fully-enclosed coop and fenced enclosure, with a maximum area of 300 square feet for both.”

The proposed ordinance outlines “requirements” for coops, including there must be a minimum of 4 square feet per chicken; they must be constructed in such a way “to prevent rats, mice or other rodents or vermin from being harbored underneath (it) or within the walls;” and they “must be clean, dry, odor-free and kept in a neat and sanitary condition.”

As far as the “waste materials” generated by the keeping of chickens, which the ordinance defines as “feed, manure and litter,” the proposed ordinance requires them to be “disposed of in an environmentally-responsible manner.”

“The materials can be composted or bagged and disposed of in the trash,” the draft language states. “It is not acceptable to pile waste materials on the property.”

In order “to ensure continued compliance” with ordinance standards, residents wishing to keep chickens would be required to annually obtain a permit from the village.

“A permit is valid for only one year and creates no vested right to continue the use of the coop,” the proposed language states. “Upon expiration or revocation of a permit, the keeping of chickens . . . is no longer permitted.”

Under the proposed ordinance, the village would have the authority to revoke a permit if a resident’s chickens became a “nuisance,” meaning there were “two determined violations . . . within a six-month period.”

Those violations would include:

• “Complaints about noise, specifically frequent, ongoing or long-continued noise that disturbs the comfort of any persons in the vicinity.”

• “Complaints about odor, specifically foul, noisome, or unpleasant odors that are frequent, ongoing, or long-continued and disturb the comfort of any persons in the vicinity.”

• “Complaints about vermin, specifically the frequent, ongoing or long-continued presence of such vermin as (but not limited to) mice, rats, raccoons and possum.”

• “Failure to comply with the provisions listed under keeping of chickens.”

The village could also reserve the right to “revoke a permit issued to a person convicted of animal cruelty in the State of Michigan.”

Councilman Dave Bailey objected to the use of the word “complaints” in the proposed language because he envisions potential cases where a resident’s neighbors file complaints, even though there’s “no basis” for them, just because they “don’t particularly like him.”

Bailey said the complaints need to be evaluated to determine their legitimacy.

Davis said the language could be changed to indicate the complaints must be “investigated and verified” by the code enforcement officer.

The original draft contained a prohibition on the slaughtering of chickens, but village President Joe Frost indicated he spoke with a resident who felt if hunters can legally process a deer on their property, they should be able to slaughter chickens as well.

Davis indicated the language could be changed to allow for the slaughtering of chickens if the practice is “done fully indoors.”

Village resident Julie Kinney, who lives on Dennison St., pointed out that unlike the chickens that would be raised in local backyards, “the deer’s already dead” when someone brings it home to butcher.

Kinney thinks requiring the slaughtering of chickens to be done indoors would be an “important” provision to have because she “wouldn’t want to hear that happening.”

Frost also raised an issue about the proposed ordinance not allowing coops to be “closer than 100 feet from any dwelling on a neighboring property.” He felt that distance could end up excluding many village properties.

“While many of our parcels within the village are very long, many of them are also very narrow,” he said.

Davis indicated that distance could be changed to 25 to 30 feet.

Councilwoman Allison Kemp wondered if it was possible to create some sort of pilot program, as was previously discussed, whereby only a limited number of permits would be issued initially as a way to test things and gauge public response.

Davis indicated he would look into that idea again, but his concern is it could potentially spawn legal challenges from people who didn’t make the cut to get a permit.

He believes simply enacting the chicken ordinance, then seeing how things go is “your ultimate pilot program.”

“We really could just do this for a year, and if it doesn’t work out, you can repeal it,” Davis told council.