Kane County Board Member Mike Donahue: One Testimony Not Enough Reason to Ban Roosters

Raising roosters can really raise a rift between residents. That much was clear at our Kane County Development Committee meeting this week.

While I made light of the prospect of an ordinance that targets male-only chickens in a blog last month, the seriousness of the issue became more apparent through emotional testimony delivered at the meeting.

On one side of the fence (literally) we have a mother and a young daughter in 4-H who have been raising chickens on their rural estate lot for four years. The experience teaches the young girl valuable lessons of the head, heart, hands and health (the four H’s).

On the other side we have a neighbor who is annoyed daily by obnoxious noise produced by the roosters next door at all hours of the day and night, and she says she can’t take it anymore.

The aggrieved neighbor wants her county government to outlaw the beastly birds on rural estate lots such as theirs, while the mother/daughter pair implore that doing so would preclude thousands of children throughout the county from participating in the wholesome rituals of 4-H.

So, what is a County Board member to do?

I come from a land use and zoning background, and over the years I have worked to resolve dozens of conflicts between adjoining landowners arising from things like noise, light, dust, odor and/or vibration. One way to deal with them is through the promulgation and enforcement of regulations and the other is through conflict resolution.

The approach used is normally determined by how widespread the problem is. If it’s an isolated incident, you might compel the parties to work together to resolve the issue. However, if the problem has become prevalent and recurring throughout the community, you might consider creating a new ordinance to address it, but the decision to do so should not be taken lightly.

Ordinances affect the entirety of the targeted populace, in this case thousands of people who reside on rural estate zoned lots throughout the county. The decision of whether or not to impose restrictions on an entire classification of property is properly determined by examining the public benefit by doing so (or not) versus the hardship imposed by doing so (or not).

In this case, the Kane County Development Department is not able to document other complaints from residents about rooster noise, and the Development Committee has tabled the matter indefinitely. Based on the evidence presented so far, it appears the hardship presented by a single resident is not sufficient to warrant the imposition of more regulation on a broad segment of the public. At the same time, there appears to be substantial public benefit from allowing families to raise roosters and participate in programs like 4-H.

So in this case it would appear that conflict resolution between two neighbors is the best way to resolve the matter. Not all of my colleagues on the County Board agree, however. Some feel we should have taken action now. But, if more of these cases come to light and the problem becomes more widespread, then government action could become warranted in the future.