Marysville to ban chickens, long list of livestock as pets
Marysville residents hoping to keep chickens and other non-traditional pets at home may find it difficult under a new city law OK’d by officials this week.
City Manager Randy Fernandez said a new domestic animals and fowl ordinance was crafted after code enforcement received complaints about chickens from neighbors over more than a year.
Although he said those initial concerns stemmed from three or four residents with a certain kind of animal — like roosters waking people up — the new ordinance includes a bigger range of prohibited animals than the current rules address.
At present, Marysville’s ordinance bans “animals or domestic fowl within the city except dogs, cats, birds, fowl, or animals commonly classified as pets.” The new ordinance, which is slated to take effect in mid-August, expands that to animals often found on farms, as well as a long list of “not domesticated” animals ranging from badgers, cougars, and coyotes to kangaroos, pheasants, and tigers.
“The keyword is basically livestock,” Fernandez told to City Council members Monday. “We have received complaints from neighbors. … Those residents would like us to prohibit that now in the future. We met with legal. We ran it through the planning commission — they agreed. So, what this basically does is tighten the limit on … no more chickens and some other animals that we would consider livestock, that do not belong in the limits of Marysville or any other city."
City attorney Al Francis said the new ordinance “gives Randy teeth” to deal with addressing future animal complaints “case by case if that’s the way that administration wants to.”
Francis said he originally believed the city’s current rules would encompass chickens.
However, Fernandez said the challenge has become that residents claim non-traditional animals as pets — technically falling within current restrictions.
“This is a city. Townships allow more farm-like animals such as chickens and horses and things of that nature. Cities do not. … I’ve even read places where people have pet alligators,” the city manager said. Instead, he said they “tried to cover the full gambit.”
‘Legislating pets’ or include long list of animals?
On Monday, some council members said they were concerned about enforcing the new rules, including those who already have non-traditional animals.
Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Hayman questioned whether the ordinance was meant as a prohibition on animals only kept outdoors, adding, “So, if you have a pet pig and it’s indoors, the way I read it, it’s allowable.”
Francis said that’s not the case, pointing to a section that “prevents the keeping or housing of” certain animals. He said, “Candidly, I think the answer is if they’re indoors, we would have no knowledge.”
Councilman Dave Barber said he thought the list went a little too far by including animals like chinchillas, doves, and ferrets because he knows people who have them. Reading from an internet search at the council dais, he said some of those are increasingly domesticated as pets, adding, “I get the rest of it, and I feel for the folks who have chickens. … But I question those three.”
Francis said he looked at what “a lot of other municipalities have on the list” of banned animals in homes.
“So, I didn’t reinvent the wheel,” he said. “That said, I agree, if there are specific animals we want to allow or consider allowing to be kept indoors, would probably strike them from that list.”
Despite the concern, council members approved the ordinance as recommended.
Mayor Wayne Pyden said he understood but thought it “better to have more than less.”
Barber and Councilman Dan Shirkey voted against it.
“I’m sure there’s other places and other ordinances that can be used to correct some of the issues we’re facing, such as noise ordinances and other (things) that can be brought to bear,” Shirkey said. “As opposed to legislating pets.”
Contact Jackie Smith at (810) 989-6270 or jssmith@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @Jackie20Smith.