The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0286.048 2024-2026From: marie Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:22 AM To: Council Testimony Cc: mdtedei@airmail.net; Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennisierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder,-Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca3paba'C_� Holeka; Hustace, James CCD Subject: November 19th, 2025 - Bill 52 V O < Aloha Honorable Hawai'i Council Members, y n I'm a soon -to -be -retired farmer who, among other things, raises chickens (hens, roosters, gui ea fowl), and, for what it's worth, a former out of state city council member. I have been researching property for purchase, mostly in the North Kohala & Honokaa areas for over a year, while I work to sell my farm and retire from full-time farming and join some family there. One of the aspects of Hawai'i Island that appealed to me most, was its predominantly rural feel. Seeing chickens running around town and waking up to the crow of a rooster in the distance, certainly made me smile — it's not like they're harmful or predatory. Quite the opposite as many have said in past weeks. I was quite surprised to learn that currently keeping poultry is not actually allowed on residential property — unless specifically zoned RA, agricultural— especially after seeing how common chickens are throughoutthe island. I would have thought such restrictions applied only in HOA communities, which often do. So, I commend the Council for lookingfor ways to allow this now, however, there are several provisions/restrictions in this proposed bill that I feel are detrimental not only to the rights of those keeping birds with the purpose of providing protein and/or companionship, but also for the health and wellbeing of the birds themselves. I've read the bill and proposed amendments in their entirety. I understand its objective is to now allow poultry in non-agricultural zones. (Seems a little restrictive to have ever not allowed them— especially since many residential parcels are very large lots. I'm seeing 15,000-acre + zoned regular resi.) And I am guessing there's been an influx of complaints by new residents unaccustomed to hearing them in their former HOA ruled subdivisions on the Continent, because restricting chickens is a very common practice there. Sadly. But some of these restrictions that others have also brought to the attention of council really should be considered for revision/removal. • As written, the proposed flock size of 2 minimum (on any size yard) 1 don't know how many properties are 3000sq ft, but suffice it to say that a min of 4-5 birds is better. 2 isn't sufficient to provide even a single person with a consistent weekly supply of eggs, and is an unnatural number of birds fora flock. Chickens are social flock animals— not pairs. The number of days per year a hen lays varies by breed and daylight. I haven't raised birds in a tropical setting, but I imagine molting still occurs as days shorten over the winter months, reducing egg production while birds regrow feathers. For someone who bakes, cooks from scratch, and relies on eggs as a protein source, 2-4 eggs a day (about one dozen a week) may not be enough. Comm. Ref. To: 1 Ref. Date NOV 1 90 R I've raised small livestock commercially, including flocks poultry, since 2008, in a semi - urban setting, and fully understand concerns about cleanliness, noise, and odor. But rather than limiting the number of birds, I'd encourage the Council to focus the rules on proper management and maintenance. A neglected coop with two hens can create far more odor and flies than a well - kept flock often. Responsible owners shouldn't be penalized for the few who don't manage their coops properly. Perhaps working in conjunction with one of the schools offering free husbandry classes would be helpful and informative. Biohazard prevention could also be covered. • The ordinance also prohibits keeping roosters —which are, of course, needed to sustain a viable flock. I can understand restricting smaller yards to one adult rooster per yard (or per a certain number of hens), so long as owners are allowed to raise chicks to maturity to determine their sex before processing or selling off excess males. (I actually do that now raising three separate flocks on about three acres; more than one rooster per tenor so hens puts too much pressure on the birds and not enough space can cause territorial issues.) However, not allowing any roosters creates a situation where people are dependent on buying new chicks whenever their flock needs replenishing, which could be all too often if there's a predator or every couple of years -just to maintain steady egg production, which isn't sustainable. Chickens do sometimes get sick or die, leaving a 6-8 month lag before new chicks mature and begin laying. As a former council member, and a citizen, I've heard the complaints by city folks about a rooster crowing. However, cooping the birds at night, a common practice for safety, (and somethingyou can write into the ordinance), and in keepingwith the setback rules of those coops, will pretty much eliminate the "nuisance" issue of an early morningwake up crow. Although, a single crowing rooster (at any time), is no louder than a dog barking at a squirrel, etc., or a coqui frog's constant song. We're not eliminating people's dogs for barking, are we? The suggested amendment would disallow, free -ranging, even on one's own property, by eliminating the "fenced area" language from the original draft. . Free -ranging produces healthier birds and eggs due to a more natural diet and helps control bugs organically. It also reduces concentrated areas of waste; manure dispersed over a yard breaks down faster and enriches the soil. 1 understand some people might not want a neighbor's birds pecking through their garden, so keeping birds on one's own property should certainly be encouraged. But that can be managed with simple fencing, regular feeding, and cooping at night— both for predator safety and to reduce morning wandering. The proposed rule would also prevent residents from selling surplus eggs & chickens — a small but meaningful local food source for neighbors who can't keep hens themselves. It could also serve as a modest income supplement for a family or individual. Shouldn't the Council encourage self-reliance? Are other home -based incomes also prohibited? I hardly think it would be cause of any nuisance, or real competition of retail egg sales, etc. It would keep any surplus food from going to waste and likely make a healthy food resource available to someone who otherwise might not have it. In conclusion, I do think there are ways anyone who has access to a backyard can safely keep a small flo'bk of 4 or 5 hens, and a rooster if they choose, without inconveniencing the reasonable senses of any neighbor. But to eliminate the right of a family or individual to feed themselves, something generations of people have done for thousands of years before supermarkets, seems pretty counterproductive to self-sufficiency. And, as I've heard others comment, on an island, that is something it would seem to be on everyone's mind. There may come another day when people will be quite grateful for their neighbors who keep small flocks of chickens. 1 hope my suggestions are taken in the spirit intended. I truly look forward to soon becoming a resident of your beautiful island and joining my cousin and his family there, and raising a small flock myself. I hope my list of potential new homes is not limited by these restrictions. Consider them, pets with delicious benefits. Mahalo for your time and thoughtful consideration. Aloha, Marie