The Prince George's County Board of Appeals on Oct. 22 took under advisement an appeal filed by the owners of 6711 Oakland Avenue in Riverdale after legal argument over whether keeping chickens on the property violates the county zoning ordinance.

The appeal challenges a Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (DPIE) violation notice that ordered removal of all fowl from the lot. DPIE and the Office of Law argued the keeping of chickens on the property constitutes "urban agriculture" as defined in the zoning ordinance and therefore is a principal use that is not permitted as a second principal use on a lot in the RR zone. County counsel said the enforcement notice cites sections 27‑5101(b)(2) and 27‑5101(c) of the zoning code.

Property owners and their counsel disputed that interpretation. Attorney Melissa Carter, representing the property owners, told the board that an amendment to the zoning ordinance (Council Bill 098‑2021) changed accessory‑use language to be permissive and that the definition and accessory‑use criteria permit limited, on‑lot urban agriculture as an accessory use when it meets the statutory criteria (subordinate in purpose, limited in area/intensity, and not changing the character of the principal use). Carter also raised a procedural objection: the initial April violation notice used a housing form that omitted the correct appeal timeline and appeal office references; she argued that omission could render the notice deficient.

County counsel (Karen Kalisa Smith, Office of Law) said the county corrected the procedural form when it reissued the violation in July and that an appeal had in fact already been filed and preserved; she said the zoning question — whether the keeping of fowl is principal urban agriculture or a permissible accessory use — is the dispositive legal question. Inspector Brian Proctor confirmed he observed the chickens during an on‑site complaint inspection; neighbors testified in support of the owners and said the chickens are kept for family eggs and as pets and are not sold.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Vice Chair Johnson moved that the board take case V29‑25 under advisement while the board receives and reviews the principal/use and accessory/use tables referenced in the zoning ordinance. Member Stanton seconded. The roll call vote was Chair Boulware — aye; Vice Chair Johnson — aye; Member Stanton — aye. Motion carried 3–0.

The board instructed staff to provide the cited principal‑use and accessory‑use tables and to return with the materials so the board can deliberate and issue a final decision. No final determination was made at the hearing.