As it exists today, College Township has the following ordinance officially on the books, which is applied to properties under 10 contiguous acres. This ordinance officially BANS all of the following on less than 10 acres, as written:

Section 200-7 Definitions.

FARM USE:

The use of land and structures for one or more of the following: the tilling of the land; the raising of crops, fruits and vegetables; and the raising and keeping of livestock and poultry; horticultural uses related to the raising, propagating and selling of trees, shrubs, flowers and other plant materials; forestry uses related to the harvesting of lumber products.

According to this language, College Township bans home gardens on all properties under 10 acres in size. This is either economically discriminatory (only the "wealthy" can have gardens or keep certain animals), or the original intent of this ordinance definition was NOT to actually ban the listed items for all categories of use, but to prevent homeowners on smaller lots from starting a full farming enterprise. That is, the listed items are only actually prohibited IF THE OWNER IS RUNNING AN ACTUAL FARM OPERATION OR ENTERPRISE on less than 10 acres. However, the township's current practice is to selectively enforce parts of this ordinance. The risk remains that the township could decide to enforce all of it at any time.

This is the ordinance the township currently uses to deny residents' the ability to get or keep pet birds that are sometimes used in large-scale farming (such as certain fowl) based on the assumption that birds can only ever be one single category of use (i.e., "farm use").

The township also violates land and pets owners' rights to true DUE PROCESS by (1) denying the owner an opportunity to record or register their pet birds as anything other than "farm use" and (2) by summarily forcing property owners to get rid of their property (anything listed in the ordinance above) FIRST and then go through the months- or years-long process of asking for ordinance language revisions (i.e., if you plant a small vegetable garden, they can force you to remove it for as long as it takes the township council to decide to change the language in the ordinance, which can be years).

In addition to having the risk of home gardens shut down under this ordinance, the township makes no careful distinction between types of fowl or their possible uses. The opinion that some still hold is that animals like certain fowl can only ever be considered "farm use" animals. The township has not considered that plants and animals can have other classifications for use such as pets in the case of animals, informal educational projects for school students, temporary insect control, personal enjoyment of experimenting with growing certain commercially available crops, etc. 

While many other types of animals such as fish, pigs, and rabbits are widely understood to have multiple uses like meat production ("farm use") AS WELL AS "family pet" or other statuses, College Township's ordinance fails to acknowledge the same for other animals like feathered vertebrates/fowl.

In 2019, a PA state court set legal precedent by deciding in favor of a Fayette County family keeping chickens (a "farm use" product according to College Township) under "pet" status. The judge deemed that HOW the family treated and kept the animals changes the chickens' designation from farm/ag use to "family pet," which removes those particular animals from being categorized as "farm use." We are asking College Township to acknowledge this precedent and reconcile this recent development at a higher court in Pennsylvania with their current language and practices.

In addition to changing the garden ban language, we believe that College Township will need to separately reflect more contemporary language about the fact that certain fowl like chickens (just like fish, alligators, rabbits, and pigs) can be both "farm use" and "non-farm use" (such as pets), where some of these animals should fall under pet ordinances, not "farm use."

We are NOT asking College Township to allow unregulated or unsafe keeping of vegetable gardens, fruit plants, and multi-use animals like fowl in College Township. Instead, we absolutely expect the township to protect residents' rights and safety by focusing their regulations not on banning certain specific animals categorically, but on regulating the aspects of gardening or of keeping animals that can be problematic. For example:

1. Ensuring minimally acceptable aesthetic standards and appropriate conditions on and around a property.

2. Ensuring and enforcing cleanliness and hygiene minimum requirements to avoid strong odors and disease, especially for animals kept outside (just like dogs or other animals that venture outdoors); i.e., a written manure/waste management plan.

3. Ensuring animals remain within the bounds of owner's land.

4. Ensuring that gardens and multi-use animals or pets are no louder than dogs or other lawn care equipment.

5. Ensuring the humane treatment of the animals.

College Township should introduce updated (and clear) ordinance language that simply follows successful models from other municipalities that give people with different opinions about growing crops and keeping non-threatening animals and their reasonable uses EQUAL consideration and due process -- language that protects the rights of land and pet owners.

We understand that some residents maintain strong opinions against certain animals or gardens, just like some people have a strong opinion against or fear of dogs and cats. Their displeasure with those animals or growing crops should not, and does not, prevent residents of College Township from keeping animals like dogs and cats on their properties or growing home gardens today because those animals are understood to be pets and growing crops is not generally considered a nuisance.

We believe that a fair process must be established that grants residents their right to due process when the township attempts to apply the wrong ordinance to pets or garden operations and a pathway to consideration of alternative categorization and evaluation of animal and crop use.

College Township should IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND enforcement of this poorly written, misused, and incorrectly enforced ordinance until the language discrepancies are resolved by working WITH the community (not OVER the community). Enforcing a bad ordinance is poor government and a waste of taxpayer money. We would expect College Township Council to remove any unnecessary language that it does not intend to enforce, such as their current written ban on tilling land and growing crops, vegetables, and fruit. That language should be removed if the township does not intend to enforce it.