McHenry Times

City of Harvard Administration Committee met Sept. 13.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

Chairperson Lisa Haderlein called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Committee members present: Chairperson Lisa Haderlein, Alderman Dan Carncross, Alderman Charlie Gorman and Alderman Matt Perkins. Also present were Mayor Mike Kelly, Alderman Jay Schulz, City Administrator Lou Leone, Finance Director Deb Bejot, Community Development Director Donovan Day, City Attorney Brandy Quance and members of the public.

Public Comment 

Chairwoman Haderlein opened the floor to public comment for any item not on the agenda. There were none.

Review Audit FY Ending April 30, 2023 

Matt Beran with Lauterbach and Amen presented the FY23 Annual Audit Review, highlighting the key financial reports, indicating all funds are good financial condition, and the City’s internal controls are solid. Matt also reviewed new recommendations this year, mainly centering around new GASB standards, which the City will work on establishing with L&A in the upcoming year. Matt and the Committee also discussed the past recommendation to correct the ongoing Park Fund deficit, which will be on the Park Board Agenda for the September 18th meeting. A motion was made by Alderman Carncross, seconded by Alderman Gorman to recommend to the City Council that the audit be approved as presented.

Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 27.04E.2& 3, Sound Permit 

The draft ordinance was not available for review; item tabled until the next meeting.

Proposed Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Backyard Chickens 

Community Development Director Donovan Day reviewed the proposed regulations governing backyard chickens as presented in the agenda packet.

Committee questions/comments

• Alderman Gorman and Alderwoman Haderlein suggested a one-time entry fee of $300 similar to Spring Grove after which a $30 annual fee would apply. Fees would be set forth in Chapter 20.

• The Committee discussed how to handle the regulations for a tenant as opposed to an owner occupied residence. Require a copy of the lease agreement and/or a letter from property owner/landlord that chickens are allowed. 

• The permit application should require language that in order to obtain and maintain a permit, an annual inspection is required or upon receipt of a complaint.

• Alderman Carncross related concerns from his constituents that allowing chickens would create a nuisance that would be difficult to police and cause a decrease in property values. He recommended that the regulations stipulate thresholds that permits can be revoked for chronic nuisances. Attorney Quance indicated that enforcement would come on the front end of the permitting process; there are aspects that would be hard to police. Donovan indicated that complaints such as slaughtering chickens would follow a normal code enforcement investigation. He related there are certain privacy rights that wouldn’t allow the City to come onto an individual’s property without permission. Mayor Kelly noted an additional enforcement option would be an administrative warrant.

• Alderman Gorman suggested that the fine language should include a broader coverage of violations. He also inquired as to the percentage of homes in the towns that allow chickens actually have them. Donovan related that Fox Lake issued 4-5 permits a year. Initially there was a rush of applicants, but participation eventually slowed down. An entry fee of $300 might discourage individuals that don’t want to make that kind of investment.

• Mayor Kelly said he liked the idea of banding chickens to determine who the chickens belong to and suggested the City handle that process. He also suggested the Committee consider how to handle chickens that have died.

Audience Participation

City Attorney Brandy Quance clarified that tonight’s meeting is a committee meeting and is not part of the zoning process. There is due process involved with the zoning process. She further commented that evidence and testimony presented at tonight’s meeting would not be considered as part of the zoning hearing and would have to be presented at the actual zoning hearing.

Alderwoman Haderlein opened the meeting to public participation with a 3 minute limit. The following individuals addressed the Committee:

• Sarah Berg, 508 Old Orchard Rd., expressed her objections/enforcement concerns in allowing chickens when the City can’t enforce people who have chickens now. She has gone all around getting signatures and she saw 8 chickens as well as ducks. She has also seen people taking them into the house and down into the basement.

• Dave Helmeid, 308 N. Jefferson St., said there has been a lot of talk about generalizations and thought many of the comments are fairly unsubstantiated. There are already chickens in town and making it legal and enforcing a permit would give the City more ability to enforce the chickens that are already here. He listed the communities in Illinois that already allow chickens and noted that according to the Baltimore magazine, there are 12 million households in the US that have backyard chickens. Dave related statistics of illnesses relative to backyard chickens which are very low. He further thought the $300 initial fee was excessive. He has 400 verified signatures from intown residents that are at least ok with this.

• Carol Yirek, 208 Galvin Parkway, inquired how having chickens next door will affect her property values, how far away from the property line can the coop be and what type of fencing will be allowed. She also asked if there would be any type of requirement for the removal of a chicken coop when people lose interest and the coop it is no longer being used as a chicken coop.

• Liz Goad, 607 W. Blaine St., concurred there needs to be more rules. Her next door neighbor has 4 chickens and a duck with a makeshift coop. He’s the same guy that shoots fireworks and shoots a bbgun in his backyard. Liz commented that there will be more varmints and that once a year inspection probably isn’t enough. The police have better things to do than chase a chicken.

• Sarah Thompson, 319 Marengo Rd., addressed concerns that backyard chickens will lower property values. It’s never been substantiated; she’s lived in places like Evanston and Chicago that allow backyard chickens. It isn’t the issue that people think it is. A lot of things that people bring up don’t actually become issues. Elgin actually had a pilot program that was so successful that they went ahead with an ordinance change.

• Scott Logan, 700 E. Brown St, said he is opposed to having backyard chickens. He commented that while on vacation, he stayed with an out of state family member who has backyard chickens legally; the backyard is filthy with feathers, food and feces. He commented that Section C Paragraph 5 of the proposed ordinance doesn’t cover setbacks on a corner lot; he further recommended a clause be added allowing for inspection at any time as a prerequisite to obtaining a permit; this would allow for enforcement based neighbors’ complaints that would allow personnel to enter the property. He felt that if residents want to raise chickens, they should do so where it is legal instead of trying to change our community to suit them. Donovan said that the UDO addresses accessory uses and the setbacks for a fence on a corner lot.

• Nissi Rockcastle, 202 N. Jefferson St., brought up code enforcement and commented that if residents are concerned, they can let the City on their property to look into the neighbor’s side yard. People that want to get a permit for chickens are going to keep up to the standards to keep their permit. The people that are fighting so hard for the opportunity for backyard chickens aren’t going waste their money and mistreat and neglect their chickens.

• City Administrator Leone clarified that code enforcement is not allowed to go into the back yard or peek over the privacy fence if the current landowner says no. It is permissible to view a backyard from a neighbor’s property. 

• Terry Langston, 207 N. Hayes St., has wooded land behind her. She inquired how the screening is going to keep coyotes out of city limits.

• Jessica Helmeid, 308 N. Jefferson St., said they have presented numbers and facts while the other side is unwilling to share what kind of support they have. She has been all over town for weeks and hasn’t seen any chickens. Jessica related she has been in contact with people who provide classes, i.e. Chickens 101, Coop Essentials, Caring for Your Chickens in the Winter that could be held in the library or other locations. This could also be a permit requirement to take a class.

• Kurt Rockcastle, 304 Garfield St., believes that the people that are going to do this have a heart to do so. Allowing backyard chickens isn’t going to be a really big deal. Banding would help with enforcement. He stated he was tired of giving up things for a few bad people that a lot of good people want to do.

• Dave Helmeid addressed a love it or leave it attitude which he felt is unacceptable and a problem in this community. He said he has every right to live in this community and to put forth an agenda he believes in and due process will play out.

• Robert Thompson, 319 Marengo Road. There are solutions and ways to address everyone’s concerns, i.e. deep mulch bedding and a moveable coop. There are a lot of animals that are here already. Telling people to move out if they don’t like it is not a logical argument.

The Committee discussed the concerns raised during audience participation and what regulations to put in the draft ordinance. Alderman Carncross noted a potential option to pursue would be to pose a referendum question on the ballot. City Administrator Leone said that a policy would still need to be in place. The City is limited in what they could do, but information to the public would have to be citizen initiated. Attorney Quance related she would have to research election laws and the timeframe to submit the question.

At Mayor Kelly’s request, City Attorney Quance gave an overview of parliamentary rules/process. What is before the committee is whether or not the proposed ordinance should go to the City Council. The City Council would file a zoning text amendment petition that would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be considered. Public notice is required.

Evidence is heard at the zoning board level. There are certain standards according to the UDO that have to be met for a text amendment. The Zoning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or for denial. Typically it is a majority vote for approval of a text amendment, but there are provisions in the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 11-13-14 that could force a two-thirds vote based on signatures.

Staff was directed to revise the ordinance to be reviewed at the next Administration Committee meeting to include the following provisions: broaden coverage of violations and methods of enforcement, ID bands, $300 initial fee, address renters and to spell out with more clarity on what provisions are enforced. The proposed ordinance should also include language to require some type of beginners educational class with certification submitted to the City (this may be stricken from the final version). Alderman Schulz recommended including some way to provide for an inspection to verify complaints; Donovan will check with the City Attorney.

An audience member inquired if the City would be willing to cover the cost to obtain administrative search warrants to investigate complaints. Donovan related his experience with the City of Woodstock and the process to obtain the warrant. Attorney Quance related a lot of issues with administrative warrants is getting enough evidence to get the warrant itself.

Surplus Property Declaration 

A motion was made by Alderman Gorman, seconded by Alderman Perkins to recommend to the City Council to declare the property (listing of bicycles) as surplus. All ayes. Motion carried.

New Business 

At Alderman Perkins’ inquiry, City Administrator Leone indicated that the proposal with the FOP is still in discussion.

A motion was made by Alderman Perkins, seconded by Alderman Gorman to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm.

https://www.cityofharvard.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/administration_committee/meeting/14816/minutesadministration2023-09-13.pdf