Clarenville coun­cil to review poul­try reg­u­la­tions


Clarenville chief ad­min­is­tra­tive of­fi­cer David Har­ris says coun­cil will be re­view­ing their de­vel­op­ment reg­u­la­tions in re­la­tion to keep­ing poul­try on pri­vate land.

It comes af­ter coun­cil re­ceived com­plaints about roost­ers be­ing kept in sub­di­vi­sions in the town.

“As you know, as soon as day breaks, roost­ers crow,” said Har­ris by way of ex­pla­na­tion.

The de­vel­op­ment reg­u­la­tions do not al­low poul­try, clas­si­fied as live­stock, in res­i­den­tial zones, ac­cord­ing to the mu­nic­i­pal plan, which was made ef­fec­tive in 2010, Har­ris said.

Har­ris said the coun­cil, rather than go­ing to prop­erty own­ers who own poul­try and telling them that that they must re­move their an­i­mals, de­cided to in­form them con­cerns had been raised and that the mat­ter would be brought be­fore coun­cil dur­ing the Oct. 17 coun­cil meet­ing.

He said coun­cil will de­cide ei­ther to “change the rules or en­force the rules.”

A Face­book post on Sept. 26 drew at­ten­tion to the reg­u­la­tions. Sandy Keel, us­ing Janet Keel’s ac­count, said a mu­nic­i­pal en­force­ment of­fi­cer in­formed him that coun­cil would be mak­ing a de­ci­sion on Oct. 17 on whether or not his ducks could re­main on his res­i­den­tial prop­erty.

The post was shared hun­dreds of times and drew many com­ments from peo­ple ex­press­ing their anger that the ducks, which Face­book users say have be­come a com­mon and beloved sight in the com­mu­nity, might be re­moved.

Har­ris said that the Keels’ ducks, which in­ter­min­gle with wild ducks and are not caged, are not con­sid­ered live­stock and are thereby not af­fected by the reg­u­la­tions.

“It was a mis­un­der­stand­ing be­tween what was re­layed and what we re­ceived,” said Har­ris, who also says that he spoke with Sandy Keel on Sept. 27 to clar­ify the is­sue.

Sandy Keel con­firmed with The Packet that he spoke with Har­ris re­gard­ing the is­sue and that the mis­un­der­stand­ing re­gard­ing the ducks has been re­solved.

Keel, how­ever, who also owns a chicken coop, will still be at­tend­ing the Oct. 17 meet­ing, as chick­ens are con­sid­ered poul­try are there­fore af­fected by the de­vel­op­ment reg­u­la­tion.

Har­ris said that the sit­u­a­tion will «hope­fully work out in the best in­ter­est to ev­ery­one.


A Face­book post re­gard­ing these ducks brought the is­sue to the pub­lic.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.