Larimer County adopts ordinance banning roadside sale of animals

Larimer County commissioners voted 2-0 on May 12 to adopt a revised county animal ordinance that prohibits the roadside sale of animals and adds an exemption for agents of businesses licensed by the Colorado Department of Agriculture to operate as pet stores or breeders.

The change was adopted at the second reading of the third revised animal ordinance in a Land Use hearing. Amy White, the county’s code compliance supervisor, said the only amendment in the current revision was to section 6-153(b)(1), where the words “or breeder” were added at the request of NoCo Humane. "The words or breeder were added to that at the request of our colleagues at NOCO," White said.

The ordinance is intended to stop unlicensed sales of puppies and kittens in informal locations such as parking lots, supporters said. "This is to prevent that, the sale of of puppies and kittens, along the roadside or in parking lots, where we're not clear about their the safety of the animals," Kristen Stevens, chair of the Board of County Commissioners, said during the hearing. Commissioner Cavallos (as identified in the record) also supported the change, calling it "the proper thing to do" because of reports of unlicensed sales in places such as retail parking lots.

Commissioner John Kefalas moved to adopt the ordinance as amended and to publish the changes according to statutory requirements. The motion referenced file number 25Code0284. No members of the public spoke on the item during the hearing. After the commissioners voted, the chair announced, "That motion passes 2 to 0."

The amendment includes stated exemptions for licensed entities and certain events; during the hearing commissioners noted exemptions for livestock auction events and other licensed sales are preserved in the ordinance language. The change was described as coming to the county through NoCo Humane, and the commissioners noted that "a number of jurisdictions in both Larimer County and Weld County are adopting similar ordinances." The action was recorded as a formal adoption at second reading; the motion did not record a second in the public record.

Next steps noted in the hearing record include publication of the ordinance changes per statutory requirements and continued enforcement by county code compliance staff under the updated language. No timetable for enforcement or additional administrative steps was given during the meeting.