West Mifflin halts plan to limit pets, chickens after public outcry

The West Mifflin Borough Council has decided it will not restrict the number of pets per household after a large group of residents spoke out against the proposal.

Two proposed ordinances on the agenda for Tuesday night’s meeting were removed following a public hearing, said Walter Anthony, community development director for the borough.

One ordinance restricted animals to five per household— with a maximum of three dogs. The numbers were determined by the borough council, Anthony said. If a resident had an aquarium with more than five fish, they would be violating the ordinance, for example.

The other piece of legislation was a chicken ordinance, which would have restricted chicken ownership to four female chickens per single family unit — and outlawed roosters altogether. Chicken owners would have been required to obtain a permit as well.

If the ordinances had been enacted, a household with more than the allotted number of animals would have had 60 days to come into compliance.

There would have been consequences as well.

Any residents found to be in violation of the chicken ordinance, for example, would have been subjected to a fine of no more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 30 days. Additional days of violation would have constituted a separate offense.

Anthony said West Mifflin has two farms within the bureau, and the ordinances wouldn’t have applied to them.

The residents who showed up to the public hearing were displeased with the way the ordinances were written, Anthony said. According to councilmember Karen Santoro, they were written by the borough’s solicitors, and they had been in the works for several months.

Mayor Chris Kelly, who didn’t agree with the ordinances, said roughly 200 people showed up to the public hearing — and they spanned into the parking lot. Some brought their pets, he said.

“It’s simply a case of overreaction to an isolated incident,” he said of the ordinances. “I was dead set against it from the very beginning.”

An illegal kennel was placed in a residential area and some of the dogs attacked a resident, according to Kelly.

Santoro said the incident happened in the fall, and another dog was attacked as well. She lives in the neighborhood where it took place.

“Our neighborhood is elderly, and we have a lot of people walk,” Santoro said. “It became an issue because people were afraid.”

The borough has also gotten complaints regarding roosters and chickens in the past, according to Anthony.

“The noise carries pretty far distances in different areas of the borough,” he said of the roosters. “

Kelly pointed out that the ordinances could have overburdened local animal shelters, a detail he said he believes was not considered in the proposal process.

“This solution (was) totally overkill and lacked any feelings and compassion for rightful pet owners,” he said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous — we have bigger things to worry about.”

Anthony said the borough’s council had also received numerous emails from various animal groups and other complaints ahead of the meeting as well.

“Council gave it a second thought and decided to not do anything with it, and they removed it from the agenda,” Anthony said.

Santoro said the borough council was not happy with the ordinances, which is why they were removed from the agenda.

“We never wanted to take the family pets,” she said. “We are just trying to control the nuisance and dangerous pets.”