If council prevails, chickens won't come home to roost

Ryan Ahern, ordered by Lynn to get rid of five hens, tends to pepper plants. (Patricia McDonnell/Globe Correspondent)

Ryan Ahern wanted his five hens to be comfortable in the backyard of his Lynn home, so he built them a "chicken mansion."

The wood-and-wire coop, an A-frame style structure measuring 40 feet by 50 feet, had skylights and insulation. It gave them enough room to roam or take a good dust bath in the dirt.

"They had a decent amount of room to move outside," said Ahern, 24, a construction engineer. "I wanted them to be happy. They say a happy chicken lays more eggs."

But then came the chicken eviction.

Astrogirl, Goldie, Velociraptor, Forester, and Esmerelda were deemed a "nuisance" by a city health inspector. The inspector also found that a vegetable garden in the front yard of Ahern's home in the historic Diamond District neighborhood was a threat to public health. The hens, coop, piles of wood, uncovered trash barrels, and a compost pile "may be injurious to the public health," according to a letter stating the department's concerns sent to the Atlantic Street home.

Ahern faced an ultimatum: Get rid of the backyard hens and clean up the front yard, or pay a $1,000 per day fine. He quickly listed his chickens on craigslist and gave them and the mansion to a man in Peabody. He also tidied up his garden, and bought a compost container and new barrels.

"Some of this was all about aesthetics," Ahern said, standing in the garden where tomatoes, cucumbers, and apples are growing.

Although he gave up the chickens, Ahern hopes for another coup: To stop the Lynn City Council from enacting a chicken ban, possibly as soon as Tuesday, when the council next meets. Horses, cows, pigs, and other farm animals also would get the official heave-ho. Any of those animals already permitted would be allowed to stay in the city.

At issue is a proposed amendment to a city ordinance regulating animals. Currently, hens, cattle, horses, and other livestock are allowed with a permit from the public health department. The amendment would eliminate new permits in favor of an outright ban.

"Lynn is not farm country," said City Council president Timothy Phelan. "There are great neighborhoods, many with large, single-family homes. But it's really not the place to raise livestock."

Councilor Darren Cyr, chairman of the ordinance committee that has been studying the issue, said the amendment would address longstanding concerns. "It was back in April when I got a call from someone from the health department, saying we have a very serious problem in the city with people having chickens and other livestock," he said.

Health officials clamped down on chickens after receiving a notice from the federal Centers for Disease Control about the threat of avian flu, Cyre said. The virus in birds may cause human infection.

"The CDC sent out a notice to all urban areas asking not to allow any kind of fowl to be permitted within city limits, due to concern about avian flu, even those there hasn't been any known case in America," he said. "It's a precautionary thing."

Ahern - who bought his chickens last March - said he was told by Lynn health officials that although chickens were allowed, the department was not issuing permits.

"It was a Catch-22," said Ahern, who shares the home with his wife, Nicole, and their 5-month-old son, Lion. "It didn't seem right that they could stop me from producing food for my family."

The chickens are critical to the sustainable agriculture theory he practices in his garden. The chickens would be fed scraps from the garden, such as tomato vines or basil stems; their fecal matter, in turn, would be used to fertilize soil in the vegetable garden. A good crop would produce more food for Ahern and his family. "It all goes in circles," he said.

Ahern said he was told to remove his chickens in early May, just as they were about to lay eggs. The council has since held a public hearing, and talked about the regulations at two committee meetings.

Earlier this month, the committee asked the city attorneys to research how other local cities regulate chickens.

Chicken rules in nearby cities appear a bit loosey-goosey.

In Chelsea, for example, "domestic fowl" are legal, as long as they don't "go at large or to graze in or upon any public ways, or private ways open to the public," the ordinance states.

But chickens have no place to roost in Revere. "It is unlawful for any person to keep or have under their care, custody or control, either as owner or otherwise, any live chicken, rooster, duck, geese, poultry, or fowl of any kind whatsoever," an ordinance states.

Chickens are welcome in Peabody, but only with a permit from the Board of Health. In Salem, which has nothing on its books about chickens, the zoning board relied on the state statute for agriculture to settle a dispute over whether chickens kept in a backyard of a home in the city's historic McIntire District violated local zoning. (The chickens won.)

In Lynn, Ahern hopes the City Council doesn't run afoul of common sense.

"What will they do next - outlaw parakeets and pigeons from Lynn?" Ahern asked. "Any bird could carry the avian flu virus, not just chickens."

Phelan, the City Council president, agreed that common sense is essential.

"A situation like this mandates that you take action to regulate, one way or another," Phelan said. "You'd like to think some common sense prevails. But you can't regulate common sense."

Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com.