Findlay council reopens debate on city limits for backyard farm animals after public outcry

Findlay City Council members spent more than an hour Tuesday night taking public comments and exchanging views about a proposed update to city zoning that would regulate farm animals kept inside city limits. Residents who keep chickens, ducks and horses asked council to protect long-standing uses on private property, while some council members said regulation is needed to address neighbors harmed by noise, odor or unsanitary conditions. "I will not voluntarily register or seek a permit for the animals I have rightfully kept on my own land," said Melissa Mathias Humphreys, who described keeping horses on her East Sandusky Street property for decades and cited Ohio Revised Code 713.15 to argue her use is a grandfathered nonconforming use. "No government agency should have the authority to make me ask permission for what I've lawfully done for half a century." Other residents gave personal accounts of the role backyard animals played in 4-H, homeschooling and food security. "We have chickens for years, and it was one of the best decisions...to learn responsibility," said Sarah Pew of Ward 4. Tom Demuth, who said he keeps 30 birds downtown, urged the city to focus on education and targeted enforcement of the small number of problem properties rather than imposing harsh limits on everyone. Council discussion emphasized two recurring tensions: how to protect neighbors who say odor, noise or other impacts left them unable to use or sell their property, and how to avoid weaponizing ordinance enforcement against well-kept yards. "This is an evolving thing," Councilmember Sonny Russell said. "The majority of people who raise animals do so respectfully; the concern is the few who do not." The Planning & Zoning Committee had recommended advancing a proposal with changes suggested by the Hancock Regional Planning Commission; council voted to accept that committee report and to continue work. Mayor and several councilmembers proposed a committee-of-the-whole meeting and further public outreach, including the possibility of surveying residents on specific limits and nuisance definitions. Council did not adopt any ordinance Tuesday and instead directed staff and committee members to redraft the proposal focusing on nuisance standards (noise/odor/health and safety) and clearer enforcement tools for noncompliant properties. Several councilmembers said they prefer strengthening noise and odor enforcement rather than inflexible numerical rules (for example, X animals per Y square feet). The public comment period included appeals to protect long-held property uses and requests for clearer grandfathering language so families showing animals in 4-H or keeping laying and meat birds are not inadvertently prohibited. Councilmembers acknowledged conflicting testimony about complaint counts and said they would seek better data before any final ordinance. The matter will return to committee for revision and public outreach; council members asked planning staff to gather examples of nuisance-focused codes from other Ohio cities and to quantify complaint volumes for the council record.