ESCANABA — The City of Escanaba Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, included a public hearing on a proposed zoning amendment to allow residents to keep chicken and ducks within city limits.

One citizen took to the podium and expressed her position in support of the amendment, and many more had sent letters — both for and against — which Planning and Zoning Administrator Tyler Anthony read aloud at the meeting. Ultimately, the commission decided to postpone any ruling.

The unfinalized amendment states that persons intending to keep permitted poultry must obtain a permit and license, and then enclosures, care and upkeep must meet certain parameters. The ordinance prohibits the keeping of geese, roosters, and invasive Muscovy ducks.

Some concerns expressed by those who wrote letters are already addressed within the zoning amendment text. The document includes such specifications as:

– “Livestock shall be kept in good health with emphasis on practicing preventive veterinary medicine” (Section 5.3[a]).

– For both chickens and ducks, the number is limited to six per property.

– Within enclosures, chickens must be given four square feet per animal; ducks require five.

– “No such enclosure shall be closer than 20 feet to a dwelling on an adjacent property” (Section 1917.1.1).

Several people — citizens and commissioners — noted areas in the document that seem vague, and expressed concern that a lack of explicit definitions would ultimately lie with someone’s judgment. For example, Section 5-3(h) states, “The piling of waste materials on the property is prohibited,” which raised the question of what constitutes a “pile.”

The same section states that enclosures must be kept free of “objectionable odors.” Again, without a defined measure of odor, worries arose. Smell was a major issue brought up repeatedly.

“We have our windows open during spring, summer, and fall months for extended periods of time,” wrote Joyce M. Anderson. “Many families and senior citizens do not have air conditioning. With the close proximity of our neighbors on city lots, do we need to breathe the noxious odor of chickens from our neighbors?”

Susan Corwin was the only resident who showed up at the meeting to voice her opinion in person.

“In town, having chickens would be a great thing opportunity for kids to be able to get into the 4-H,” said Corwin. “And to be able to show that chicken, learn how to take care of that chicken, and be able to learn how to take care of the eggs. How to feed them properly, how to groom them properly, as well as making sure their pen or coop is clean as well.” She continued to say that she agreed with some of the restrictions set forth, and referred to one section that disallowed the sale of eggs.

“With an overabundance of eggs, it’d be a great opportunity for a person who has the chickens to donate them to the food bank,” Corwin said.

Anthony agreed that donation was not the same as sale and may be permitted.

Former commissioner Kelli Van Ginhoven wrote to state that one reason her family has not yet sold their house in the country to move to the city is because they don’t want to part with their beloved chickens and ducks. In addition to providing eggs for a “protein-packed breakfast option daily,” she said that the animals also contribute to “stress relief.”

At the end of the meeting, when Corwin again spoke at the podium, she also mentioned that chickens could serve as special needs service animals.

Commissioner Michael Harris said that while he understood arguments for the change, he was inclined to oppose it.

“The reason a lot of people move into the city is because there are not farm animals of any type. Chickens, ducks… I personally don’t want my kids and my grandkids and anybody else near them that I’m associated with. I think they stink. I think they’re foul,” he said.

Others agreed that one attraction to living in a city was to be free of the noise, smells, and mess inherently associated with livestock.

The public health element was addressed in multiple letters.

“Most of all, I am concerned about the waste that accumulates,” wrote Betty Giovenco. “Waste … must be disposed of. Where? In our waste bins. This is not a sanitary option.”

Others raised different health concerns.

“Highly pathogenic avian influenza has been detected in the U.S.,” wrote Anderson. “Would an inexperienced hobby farmer have the knowledge and resources to deal with this if the flock flight became infected? Do we want to risk bringing avian flu to the City of Escanaba?”

Another writer who supported the ordinance, despite not intending to possess livestock herself, suggested modifications to the text.

“Require compliance with measures aimed at guarding public health and environmental health, which may in extreme cases necessitate destruction of animals,” wrote Elizabeth Gulati.

She continued by saying that illness risk could be reduced by specifying “exclusion of vermin and prevention of contact between livestock and other wild and domestic animals, including by food supplies and droppings.”

Feelings from the commissioners were mixed.

“I personally lean towards providing the citizens of Escanaba with as much personal liberty as, like, we possibly can and still, you know, respect our neighbors,” said Commissioner Christiana Reynolds. “I think as we move towards a more like sustainable future, hobby farming is definitely going to be a piece of that. And I think it’s a smart move to think in the future and maybe start, you know, laying the groundwork for creating more sustainable opportunities for citizens.”

She said that one of the benefits of life in the Upper Peninsula is that people can enjoy “the best of both worlds” and believes that Escanaba provides a middle ground between city and country living.

“I think it would be in the character of the city to allow something like this, especially when compared to other cities around the state who are much more, like, urbanized and they’re making it work,” said Reynolds.

The thought of “other cities” raised further questions that persisted throughout the meeting and contributed to the motion to postpone the agenda item.

Planning Commission Chair James Hellerman asked whether any neighboring communities with similar ordinances had been polled to find out how their execution was working.

Anthony admitted that while research had been done on which nearby cities had similar ordinances and some of those had been consulted when drafting the proposed ordinance, there hadn’t been any report on the results.

“Just because they have an ordinance doesn’t mean it’s a good one,” Commissioner Patrick Connor pointed out. “We haven’t heard any follow-up, pros or cons.”

Commissioners agreed to wait until next month before discussing the matter again. Anthony would consult other communities, and everyone else will digest and consider the points brought forth on Thursday.