Reynoldsburg City Council members on June 23 directed City Attorney Anthony Shook to draft proposed legislation to allow and regulate backyard chickens in the city, and Council Member Savani volunteered to work with Shook on the ordinance language.

Council members made the request after Shook summarized research comparing local rules in Central Ohio and fielded questions about enforcement, lot-size limits, permit programs and complaint histories. The council did not vote on a final ordinance; members asked the attorney to prepare a draft for later consideration.

Shook told the council that “the majority of communities in Central Ohio … prohibit chickens in residential districts,” and that where chickens are allowed the rules vary by city. He cited examples including Dublin, Upper Arlington, Grove City, New Albany, Westerville, Grandview Heights, Pickerington, Gahanna, Hilliard, Worthington and Columbus and said many jurisdictions require permits, coop standards, setback distances and limits on sales. He also noted that Columbus and Worthington administer permits through Columbus Public Health and that Reynoldsburg’s health services contract is with Franklin County Public Health, so permitting and inspections would likely need to be handled in-house.

The research package presented to council included counts and program details Shook summarized: some cities limit chickens to six birds (Winchester, Whitehall, Hilliard) or five (Bexley); Worthington requires coops be kept 150 feet from nearest residence; Hilliard recently reduced an acreage minimum to one-half acre; Worthington and Hilliard each reported roughly five active permits; and Columbus’s program is administered by a public-health veterinarian. Shook also described a university-run certification course he reviewed as “a 2 to 3 hour course” with six modules and said “the course cost is $25.”

Council members pressed on enforcement and scope. Shook said enforcement depends on how a city frames chickens in its code: where permitting sits with public-health authorities, closures and permit revocation may be available; where chickens are authorized by zoning, local code/zoning officers typically enforce requirements; and where animal codes are silent, enforcement may be limited to animal-at-large complaints.

On local experience, Shook told council he had seen “only 4 actual chicken complaints” across his five years and “only 1 citation in the drawer,” and that many owners keep coops behind opaque fences so neighbors do not see them. Council Member Savani described her preferences during discussion, saying she would “be amenable to keeping it to half acre,” favoring a zoning certificate, a six–chicken limit and a flat ban on roosters. She volunteered to work with the attorney on drafting.

Council Member Baker said she would prefer a three–chicken limit, noting the practicalities and how chickens are sold in groups. Other members suggested options including a conditional-use approach (formerly called a special exception) to give council flexibility, and possible periodic inspections by park rangers or code enforcement as part of a zoning certificate. The council asked the attorney to return with ordinance language reflecting the range of options discussed.

What happens next: City Attorney Anthony Shook will draft ordinance language for council review; Council Member Savani will act as the council’s point person during drafting. No formal vote was taken on policy at the June 23 meeting; council will consider the drafted legislation at a future meeting.