FITCHBURG — Resident Joseph Smeraldi was granted a special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday to continue housing his five chickens on his property, but he says the fight isn’t over yet.
The board voted unanimously to grant Smeraldi a special permit that would allow him to raise chickens on his Chestnut Street property, stipulating the number of fowl can’t increase and he must agree to Board of Health inspections.
Additionally, there cannot be any nuisance complaints against his property.
Members of the Zoning Board argued chickens are not allowed in residential zones and that keeping them would mean Smeraldi is using his property for agriculture instead. To remedy the issue, they granted the special permit.
Smeraldi, an attorney, plans to appeal the decision to a Superior Court, saying the city’s laws don’t prohibit chickens and he isn’t using his land for agriculture.
“I’m disappointed the board didn’t do its job,” Smeraldi said. “They failed to discuss the issue that I was cited for, which was using my land for the primary purpose of agriculture. They didn’t even debate the merits of this issue.”
Smeraldi said some board members “were just hostile to the idea of having chickens.”
In February, the Building Commission issued a citation stating that chickens were not allowed on the property because it was zoned for residential use and not for agriculture.
Smeraldi was ordered to remove all nondomesticated animals from his property within 14 days of the violation; and on Feb. 26, he was fined $100 for failing to remove the animals.
The notice of violation states the property doesn’t meet the specified land requirements of 5 acres to have farm animals and that chickens are not domestic animals.
Smeraldi argues he’s not violating the city ordinance because his property isn’t used primarily for cultivation or raising livestock.
Building Commissioner Mark Barbadoro said this is a misinterpretation of the ordinance.
Barbadoro said the city views Smeraldi’s keeping of chickens as a “nonexempt agriculture use,” which requires a special permit.
“This does not require the primary purpose of the property to be agriculture,” Barbadoro said.
In a letter to the Zoning Board, Smeraldi said his home is not an agricultural setting and his chickens are not raised for commercial purposes.
Smeraldi also argued that the animals — Dr. Penelope Pepper, Chic, Ken, Professor Polly and Stephanie T. DiNatale — are his pets and are allowed under the ordinance.
The chickens are no different than his two short-hair cats, Pepsi and Tweeters, he said.
Barbadoro said there have been a lot of issues with chicken coops over the years and farm animals are not generally allowed in residential districts.
While he recognized the animals are pets, he added that raising livestock would be considered agriculture and chickens are considered livestock by the state and city code.
“We have a system that is flexible for persons who are keeping livestock for other purposes,” Barbadoro said Wednesday. “They can go and get a special permit.”
Barbadoro said according to city ordinance, in residential districts, farm animals are prohibited without a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
He said the ordinance assumes a chicken, or any farm animal, is not a pet and is written to minimize nuisance issues such as noise and smell. Barbadoro advised anyone considering farm animals on their property to first check with the city.
Smeraldi said his neighbors love the chickens and were all supportive of his fight to keep them.
“The amount of people that were supportive of me was really surprising,” he said. “Many people actually encouraged me to make my appeal or donate money for it.”
