Green City Council holds public hearing on proposed backyard-chicken amendment; no vote tonight

Councilman Davidis opened a public hearing Tuesday on ordinance 2025-2006A, a proposed amendment to the City of Green's codified ordinances governing agricultural uses, animal husbandry and keeping of livestock that would reduce the minimum lot size for keeping backyard hens and set new permit and care requirements.

The proposal, presented by Councilman Justin Spate and co-sponsor Councilwoman Babbitt, would lower the current 2-acre minimum to 20,000 square feet (about 0.45 acres) for limited chicken ownership and set rules for numbers of hens, setbacks and inspections. "Our proposal would take that down to 20,000 square feet, which is 0.045 acres. Oh, I'm sorry. 0.45 acres," Councilman Justin Spate said while outlining the plan.

Supporters told council the change would improve access to fresh food and community resilience, and advocates stressed rules and permits would limit nuisance problems. "Farm fresh eggs are 1 of nature's few superfoods," resident Christina Gardner told the council, noting her petition in favor of the amendment and saying permits and education would help ensure responsible ownership. "Permits would allow for better regulation, should the city choose to require them."

Opponents, including representatives of homeowners associations, warned the reduced lot size would increase neighbor conflicts and enforcement burdens. Kevin Grama, vice president of the Spring Hill HOA, asked council to keep the 2-acre minimum: "We're a growing city at 20,000 plus residents. We're the sixth largest city, in Summit County. We're no longer a rural community. Who cares what other communities are doing? What's best for Green residents?" Robert Charles, an HOA officer in Meadowood, argued smaller minimums would thrust disputes onto HOAs and city enforcement: "To reduce the size of the parcel to 0.45 when it was 2 is to, I think, to ignore 1 of the very elements of the original law that's already in place."

The draft ordinance includes several specific provisions described to the council and public: a 20-foot setback from property lines and a 100-foot setback from adjacent dwellings per Summit County Public Health guidance; a prohibition on roosters on parcels smaller than 5 acres; a maximum initial permit issuance cap of 100 certificates of use and compliance per calendar year so the city can evaluate the policy; an annual inspection requirement; minimum coop dimensions of 4 square feet of enclosed space per bird and 8 square feet per bird for foraging; a ban on on-site slaughtering and commercial sales from coops permitted under the smaller-lot rules; and no variances to be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The ordinance language also makes repeat offenses within one year a minor misdemeanor under the city's property-maintenance enforcement structure.

Public commenters included householders and local agriculture advocates. Matt Hartong, president of the Summit County Farm Bureau and a dairy farmer, said his organization supports education as a tool to reduce nuisance complaints. Student cadets and residents said backyard eggs help with nutrition and education programs; Anderson Carville said access to eggs made high-protein meal plans easier during a recent AFJROTC trip. Several residents with multi-acre properties described having chickens without issue.

Council members asked detailed enforcement and implementation questions. The administration told council the most likely enforcement path would be complaint-driven, with inspections and potential Summit County Public Health involvement to determine whether a condition qualifies as a public nuisance; code violations would be cited by city inspectors and could proceed to municipal court. Councilwoman Babbitt said the city currently has sufficient staff to handle the inspections and enforcement the ordinance would require under the draft language.

A central point of debate during committee and the hearing was whether homeowners associations and properties governed by deed restrictions should be exempt. Councilman Spate said the drafters initially considered letting HOAs set their own rules but, after public feedback, included language excluding properties governed by HOAs or deed restrictions from the smaller-lot allowance. "We heard you. You guys have'we've received emails. We understand," Spate said, explaining the exclusion.

Council members and several residents warned that HOA dissolution or unclear deed language could later complicate the rule. Councilwoman Babbitt said she would be unlikely to support the ordinance without the HOA exclusion and urged caution while acknowledging the change reflects evolving resident interest in local food production.

Council did not vote on the ordinance at the hearing. Councilman Davidis noted council rules prohibit voting on the night of a public hearing and said the draft will be revised to reflect committee and public input before a future vote. "After our discussion tonight, we cannot vote per our council rules, on the night of a public hearing," Davidis said when opening the hearing.

What's next: council members asked for proposed amendments by email and signaled they will review changes and resume the third-reading process at a subsequent meeting. The ordinance was introduced earlier this year and amended in committee on April 20; the May 13 hearing provided the public's third-reading forum and generated a substantial record of comments that council indicated it will use to revise the draft.

Clarifying details and context reviewed at the hearing included the specific lot-size thresholds in the draft: 20,000 square feet (about 0.45 acres) for the smallest tier; allowances of six hens for lots between 20,000 square feet and one acre; eight hens for one- to two-acre parcels; and a formula of four hens per acre for parcels between two and five acres. The ordinance as drafted excludes HOAs and deed-restricted communities from the smaller-lot allowances unless their governing documents permit otherwise. Council members repeatedly emphasized the difference between backyard laying hens and short-term meat bird operations, and the draft keeps meat bird and commercial-production rules aligned with existing 5-acre permits for now.

Speakers asked the council to weigh enforcement costs against community benefits including food access; Christina Gardner said 25% of students in the district qualify for free or reduced-price meals and framed backyard eggs as a community food resource. Several HOA representatives warned of likely neighbor disputes and property-value concerns if neighbors keep coops on small lots.

The hearing record will be part of the ordinance's subsequent committee edits. Councilmembers asked staff to prepare clarifying guidance and an online map of deed-restricted neighborhoods should the draft be advanced. A final vote date was not set at the close of the hearing.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions are taken directly from the council's May 13, 2025 public hearing transcript.)

Ending: Council members said they appreciated the civil tone of the hearing and the high volume of input. Councilman Davidis closed the hearing and asked that residents who want to propose technical edits e-mail them to the ordinance sponsors ahead of the next meeting.