Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Livestock Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges city to allow backyard ducks under same rules as chickens
Summary
A resident asked the Planning Commission to amend city code to allow a small number of backyard ducks under the same framework now used for backyard hens (section 6.08 0.03 cited). The commission did not take formal action; staff noted the comment for code review.
At the start of the meeting a resident, Sarah Erickson, asked the commission to consider a code change to permit keeping backyard ducks under regulations similar to those already permitted for backyard hens.
Erickson told commissioners the city treats ducks as livestock and currently requires one acre of land to keep them, while backyard chickens (hens) are permitted on detached single‑family lots with limits (up to 10 hens per lot). Erickson proposed mirroring the chicken rules for ducks with clarifications she said would protect neighbors and animal welfare: a recommended minimum of two ducks (because they are flock animals), a maximum of five ducks per household, setback and housing standards to match chicken provisions, and simple water‑feature guidelines (e.g., clean, small pools rather than large ponds).
No formal code change was introduced at the hearing and the commission did not vote on the idea. Commissioners asked staff to note the request; any change to municipal code would require a formal staff initiative and public hearing under standard code‑amendment procedures.
Clarifying details from testimony - Cited code: resident asked to amend “section 6.08 0.03.” - Proposed limits: start with a minimum of two ducks (recommended three for flock well‑being) and cap at five per household; keep housing/setback rules aligned with chickens; require responsible water/pool maintenance to control mosquitoes and odors.
Context Requests to adjust animal‑keeping rules commonly begin as public comment; they are generally referred to staff for study and potential draft code changes. The Planning Commission did not advance a code amendment at this meeting.
