Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council sends backyard-chicken petition to committee after heated public debate
Summary
The Worcester City Council voted to send a petition to allow backyard chickens to the Economic Development Committee after extended public comment and split reactions from councilors; proponents cited equity and simple permitting, opponents raised health, rodent and enforcement concerns.
The Worcester City Council voted May 6 to refer a citizen petition that would allow backyard chickens in the city to the Economic Development Committee for a required public hearing.
Proponents who spoke during public participation urged the council to adopt a simple permit model and avoid zoning limits that would exclude lower-income neighborhoods. “SMART is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound,” said Yenny Daroche, a District 5 resident, urging measurable criteria for oversight. Supporters said other Massachusetts cities use concise rules and permitting to manage concerns and suggested the city ban certain types of feed to reduce rats.
Opponents told the council they feared practical and public-health problems in Worcester’s denser neighborhoods. “I am not in favor of chickens because I do live in 1 of those areas that is densely populated,” said Kendra Bruce, a District 1 resident. Councilor Morris Bergman said he would not support the change if it came to a vote, noting enforcement and health risks and saying “the experts say it's a bad idea.” Councilor King said he remains open-minded but said he supports moving the item forward for committee consideration.
City officials clarified the city’s current zoning. When asked whether the existing urban-agriculture rules allow chickens, the City Manager answered, “It does not include chickens or beekeeping.” The city clerk and solicitor explained that state and local procedural requirements mean the petition must be heard in committee after a planning-board hearing; the council majority agreed to send the item to the Economic Development Committee and scheduled further hearings.
The referral does not change the substance of the petition; it simply places the item on a committee calendar for the hearings required before any ordinance change. Supporters on the planning board had previously voted in favor of forwarding the petition to the council. The council also debated whether the matter should instead go to a public-health-focused committee, a point Councilor King raised during floor debate.
The committee step begins a formal review process that will include public hearings; no ordinance or permit has been adopted. The Economic Development Committee’s hearing schedule and any proposed draft language will determine next steps.
For now, the city’s urban-agriculture zoning remains unchanged; residents asking for immediate policy change were told the proper path is the scheduled committee hearing process.
