City Council refuses chicken vote

NORWICH – Notwithstanding requests from a few residents that chickens be allowed in the City of Norwich, the Norwich Common Council decided not to take the issue to a final vote on Tuesday.
According to Council members, a vote to change the city ordinance that currently restricts many homeowners from keeping fowl would be an inefficient use of time and resources, despite recent interest from city residents to have chickens on their property.
“I don’t believe this is in the best interest of the city at this time,” said Ward One Alderman Matthew Caldwell, one of the three Council members who refused a vote. “I believe we have far more important things that we need to consume ourselves with.”
Caldwell was backed by aldermen Thomas LoPiccolo and David Zieno in the decision not to take the issue to a final vote. Third Ward Alderman John Deierlein wasn’t present at Tuesday’s Joint Committees meeting to weigh in.
Nevertheless, the issue should be put to rest in a final vote, argued Alderman Brian Doliver who made the failed motion to bring the matter to the Common Council.
“I feel that those that wanted to have this need a decision of yes or no,” said Doliver. “My opinion was that it should go to a final vote. I’m not saying I was in favor of having chickens, but I thought it should have one.”
The chicken issue has been a topic of discussion among the City Council for several months. Council members heard the case to permit chickens from city residents at a meeting back in May. The issue was revived this week by Norwich resident Melissa Farrow who provided the Joint Committee with a petition of 105 signatures supporting changes to the city ordinance, and she expects that list to grow before the Common Council meets on July 21.
At their June meeting, the Joint Committee left the chicken proposal unresolved, most members agreeing that allowing chickens would be bad for the city; however, there wasn’t an official vote.
The Norwich city ordinance presently allows chickens within city limits, but only on property of five or more acres.
Requests for changes to the law were first made to the Council last year by people who said the city is well positioned to allow residents, including those with smaller parcels, to keep chickens because the city’s rooted in an agricultural region.
Council members have followed up on the request to change the ordinance by talking with people in their ward. The consensus is that most residents in their respective ward are wary of clucking neighbors, said Doliver.
“Of those that I have spoke with, they’re just not if favor of it,” he added. “I think others feel the same.”
“I believe that we, at this point, have more or less exhausted the issue,” Caldwell said. “Even if we were to move forward with something like this, we would have to enforce it, and we don’t have the resources to do that. I think we need to pay more attention to things that really are critical.”

Comments

There are 3 comments for this article

  1. Steven Jobs July 4, 2017 7:25 am

    dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.

    • Jim Calist July 16, 2017 1:29 am

      Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far

  2. Steven Jobs July 4, 2017 7:25 am

    jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.

  3. Steven Jobs May 10, 2018 2:41 am

    So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that

  4. Steven Jobs May 10, 2018 2:42 am

    Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.