Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edgewood planners lean toward allowing roosters with rules; staff to bring permissive draft back
Summary
After a public hearing and extended discussion, Planning Commission members signaled support for a code version that would permit small‑scale keeping of roosters under lot‑size and setback standards; staff will return with the permissive draft for formal consideration.
The Edgewood Planning Commission opened a public hearing on proposed amendments to animal regulations in Title 18 and, after public comment and staff presentations, signaled support for a version of the code that would permit small‑scale keeping of roosters with specific requirements.
Planner Morgan presented the rationale for the updates: staff sought to reconcile several code sections, align definitions and land‑use tables, and provide purpose, applicability and minimum spacing standards for different animal‑use types. Morgan said the proposed changes drew on guidance from the Washington State Department of Agriculture and comparisons with neighboring jurisdictions and Pierce County.
Resident Jason Ramirez spoke during public comment in favor of allowing roosters, saying, “I do appreciate what you have on page 32 of your handout as it pertains to fowl and poultry. I think keeping roosters is an important part of the fabric of this city.” Commissioners discussed complaints data and enforcement capacity; staff said there were five animal‑related complaints recorded in 2024 (records only back to June) and that many reports are triaged to Metro Animal Services. Commissioners and staff also noted local options to rehome roosters and that a six‑month allowance for owners who inadvertently receive a rooster would provide time to rehome the bird.
Two alternative code versions were before the commission: a permissive version (staff packet page 54) that would allow roosters on lots meeting acreage and setback criteria, and a prohibitive version (page 60) with a six‑month grace period for rehoming. After discussion about complaint volumes, lot feasibility and enforcement burden, the commission indicated consensus to proceed with the permissive draft. Staff said they would bring the page‑54 permissive version back to the commission for formal consideration next month.
No formal ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the commission provided direction to staff to return with the permissive code language for action. Staff highlighted that the permissive approach includes lot‑size minimums (staff tested 1‑acre, 1.5‑acre and 2‑acre scenarios), setback requirements for shelters, and removal procedures if a bird becomes a public nuisance.
