Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animals Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Champaign County committee approves zoning limits on backyard livestock near home‑rule cities
Summary
The Champaign County Environment and Land Use Committee voted to approve a text amendment limiting the keeping of certain animals in residential districts within 1,000 feet of a home‑rule municipality after public comment about noise, odor and property covenants.
Get email alerts on the Animals Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Champaign County Environment and Land Use Committee on an evening in January approved a proposed zoning text amendment to regulate the keeping of animals in residential districts located within 1,000 feet of a home‑rule municipality.
The amendment narrows what animals and how many may be kept in those affected residential areas and sets odor and sale restrictions; committee members described the change as a compromise between allowing small‑scale urban agriculture and protecting established residential neighborhoods.
At public comment, Champaign Township Supervisor Norman Davis said the proposed rules were needed to stop farm animals and associated noise and odor from spreading into denser residential areas. “These behaviors belong on a farm and with some distance between homes,” Davis said, adding that roosters and recent introductions of hogs had aggravated neighbors and prompted earlier enforcement action.
Several residents who said they had kept animals inside the county’s 1,000‑foot boundary urged the committee to strike a balance. Eric Auf described living near a property that at times housed “as many as five roosters, 40 chickens, up to 20 ducks, five turkeys and three swine” and called that situation “not a pleasant experience.” Lisonbee Harper and Andy Harper said covenants, fees and emergency removal notices had led them to remove animals from a property on South Madison; Lisonbee Harper told the committee that neighbors and a neighborhood covenant — not the county alone — had affected what animals could remain on the lot.
Public speakers and several committee members asked technical questions about the draft text. The ordinance attachments cited in the meeting include Attachment A (sections 7.8.1 and related subsections) and Attachment B (noted as section 7.19 h). Speakers raised these details: - The draft would allow up to six hens in some areas and a flexible cap described in the draft as “up to 18 head equivalents” in other circumstances; one speaker asked that those flexible limits be reduced. - Section 7.8.1(d) in the draft prohibits meat sales unless approved by the Champaign County Public Health authority, while section 7.8.1(e) permits sale of some “food items”; a resident asked for clarity on what food items would be allowed beyond eggs. - Attachment B (7.19 h) sets penalties but the process for lodging complaints was not specified in the draft and speakers asked which county office would receive and process odor or nuisance complaints.
Committee members discussed geography and scope: the 1,000‑foot boundary applies to parts of zoning districts that fall within 1,000 feet, not simply a straight radius from city limits, and members noted that some small pockets of neighborhoods near Champaign and other municipalities fall inside the boundary. Several members described the amendment as a compromise that preserves limited urban agriculture while preventing the kinds of high‑density animal keeping that have produced noise, odor and neighbor disputes.
The committee voted to approve the proposed zoning text amendment. Committee members said this action will be the committee’s final action on the item (the draft will not be forwarded to the full county board for further action).
The committee did not adopt numeric enforcement metrics for odor in the meeting; several speakers asked how odor would be measured and who would enforce violations. Staff said some clarifications remain to be worked out in follow‑up drafting.
Going forward, committee members said they expect the draft to be available for review by affected residents and that the committee will not reopen the item unless additional technical changes are proposed or requested.

