Superintendent of planning Shawn Champagne presented four options to council on Tuesday evening. Council voted in favour of city staff's recommendation that further research and engagement inform the draft of a new bylaw for urban hens.--NEWS PHOTO ZOE MASON
Council voted to move forward Tuesday with a pilot project that would allow Hatters to keep backyard hens.
The urban hens question was first broached by council in 2015, when city staff were directed to conduct research and draft a pilot Urban Hen Bylaw. That motion was defeated.
In 2022, a motion to investigate options for an Urban Hen Bylaw was defeated once again. However, last year, council adopted a motion asking administration to bring back amendments to necessary bylaws that could permit urban hens in Medicine Hat.
Superintendent of planning Shawn Champagne gave a presentation at Tuesday’s meeting that briefed council on the options available moving forward.
Council voted 5-3 in favour of an option recommended by city staff, which will see administration conduct research and public engagement then present a report and draft bylaw later this year.
Under the city’s present bylaw prohibiting the keeping of livestock, avian species like chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese are included. Staff recommended that council direct them to prepare a comprehensive new bylaw for the regulation of urban hens in Medicine Hat.
The new bylaw would be based on best practices drawn from other municipalities that allow urban hens, as well as the results of public engagement.
The recommended motion also directed staff to prepare a report outlining anticipated costs and staff resources for implementation, information not included in Tuesday’s presentation.
Staff would present both the report and bylaw to council in Q2 of this year. At the advice of interim city manager Joseph Hutter, council amended the motion to push the timeline back to Q3.
Administration also presented several alternatives. One option would have seen council amend the Responsible Animal Ownership bylaw to enable the keeping of urban hens unilaterally, without stakeholder engagement. Another would have permitted the ‘deregulated’ keeping of urban hens, which would enable ownership by omission, meaning there would be no administrative implications or enforcement mechanisms to implement.
The last option was to rescind the motion and shelve the proposal altogether.
Mayor Linnsie Clark said it was a question of letting property owners make choices for themselves.
“I think we should be very careful about limiting what people can do on their own property.”
She also said it was time for the matter to stop being deferred.
“I don’t like that this does keep coming back like, ‘Let’s study it more.’ I think doing it is a great way to study it.”
Coun. Yusuf Mohammed framed a pilot project as a good compromise on a polarizing problem.
“It would give us real data, going back and coming with this information would also help us to be able to analyze whether we should continue with this or not,” he said.
“I’m of the opinion that if citizens in our community connect with us and they want to put something forward, I think there’s an opportunity to give it a chance.”
Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Fort McMurray and Leduc allow urban hens. Lethbridge, Cochrane, and Lloydminster do not.
All Alberta municipalities that allow urban hens require owners to obtain a licence, with most requiring annual renewal to ensure bylaw officers can verify compliance on an ongoing basis.
Provincial registration is also mandated for disease control traceability.
Of the municipalities that allow urban hens, only Lamont requires consent from neighbours as a prerequisite, but all participating municipalities require neighbour notification.
Coun, Stuart Young said staff had not provided enough detail about associated costs and resource allocation for him to move forward.
Considering expected property tax increases, which were to be discussed later Tuesday, Young said it didn’t make sense to authorize a divisive program that would be attached to new expenses.
“The majority of the city does not want this,” he said. “This costs money, and this isn’t going to bring people together.”
Young argued that the motion should be shelved based on budget concerns.
“This is about priorities. I agree with this in principle, but this is not a priority for Medicine Hat.”
Couns. Young, Chris Hellman and Ted Clugston voted against the motion. Coun. Brian Varga was not present to vote but told council over Zoom that he opposed the motion.
Next steps for the motion include a public engagement process that will inform the draft of the bylaw. That engagement is scheduled for later this spring.
