Committee backs zoning change to allow household hens, bars roosters

The Hawaii County Council Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development voted to amend and forward Bill 52 to the full council with a favorable recommendation, approving new zoning rules that would permit household egg production in certain residential districts while banning roosters and commercial sales of eggs.

Bill 52 would add a definition and rules for "household henrys" to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code and permit them in single-family (RS), double-family (RD), multiple-family (RM) and residential-commercial mixed-use (RCX) districts subject to standards on enclosures, setbacks and flock size. The committee also voted to adopt language recommended by the planning director and planning commissions to tighten enclosure standards and direct residents to state and federal agencies for technical guidance.

The change was introduced by Council Member Kimball and presented to the committee by Planning Director Jeff Darrow and planner Tracy Camaro. Camaro summarized the proposed code language, saying a household henry would be “a parcel or lot where female chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, or other poultry are kept, raised, and maintained for the noncommercial production and consumption of eggs” and that the draft added Section 25-4-17 establishing permit and operation rules. The draft in the presentation limited animals to female poultry, required confinement to a coop, cage, hutch, henhouse, or other enclosure, and set a minimum distance of 20 feet from residential districts other than RA for enclosures that are not sited within required yards.

Camaro and Darrow explained the proposed numeric limits: two hens allowed for the first 3,000 square feet of lot area and one additional hen for every additional 1,000 square feet (for example, a 5,000-square-foot lot would be allowed about four hens). The draft also forbids roosters and prohibits the sale of eggs produced in a household henry.

The planning director and planning commissions urged several amendments that the committee accepted as part of a motion to replace Bill 52’s contents with communication 286.4. Key recommendations adopted or discussed included: revising the definition to focus the new use on female chickens kept for noncommercial egg production; replacing the ambiguous term “fenced area” with clearer language such as “fully enclosed area” or “other secured space”; adding the residential agricultural (RA) zoning district as a permitted location with adjusted standards; and adding a cross-reference to applicable state and federal agencies (the State Department of Health, State Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture) so residents have sources for best-management practices.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions during discussion. Some members urged that the final code require fully enclosed structures rather than the looser phrase “secured space,” expressing concern for both worker hens’ protection from predators and the county’s native bird species. Others pressed the planning department for data on historic complaints; Darrow said most notice-of-violation cases the department has issued historically involved roosters, which are louder and tend to trigger neighbor complaints. Council members also discussed how setbacks and building-permit exemptions in Chapter 5 could mean small enclosures placed near property lines would not trigger a permit, and several members asked staff to return with clearer guidance on how lot size, setbacks and building-code exemptions interact with the new hen rules.

The committee took two formal votes on Bill 52. First, it approved the amendment adopting the planning director’s recommended language (motion by Council Member Kimball; second by Council Member Inaba), passing on a roll call, seven in favor and one opposed (Council Member Kaguada), with one member absent. Later the committee voted to forward Bill 52 to council with a favorable recommendation; the roll call recorded seven votes in favor and one opposed (Council Member Onishi), with Council Member Kirkowitz absent. The clerk announced that the motion passes and the bill will move to the full council with a favorable recommendation.

Supporters framed the change as restoring and clarifying long-standing household practices and increasing household self-sufficiency amid rising food costs. Opponents and some questioners cautioned about noise, odors, predator risks, disease transmission to native birds, and enforcement mechanics if neighbor disputes escalate. Several council members said they are open to incremental changes — starting with hens and reevaluating whether to add ducks, quail or other small poultry later — and requested the department return with clarifying language on “secured space,” setbacks and interactions with building-code exemptions before final readings.

The committee recorded the planning department and both planning commissions as having forwarded favorable recommendations to the council; the planning director’s report and communications were listed in the meeting record as the basis for the amendment.