Laconia council approves ordinance allowing domestic chickens in city, 3‑2

The Laconia City Council on Sept. 8 adopted amendments to city zoning that allow domestic chickens as a residential accessory use, passing the ordinance by a 3‑2 vote after public comment and extended discussion about enforcement, lot size and nuisance concerns.

Marsha Hayward, a resident of 9 Wildwood Road who identified herself as a member of the zoning board, urged the council to reject the proposal during a public hearing. “When one removes the square footage of all of the buildings, there was not much room left for chickens,” Hayward said, and she cited concerns about predators, nuisance complaints and disease. Hayward also said she had not been able to confirm whether the Laconia Humane Society would accept surrendered chickens.

Robin Tyler, the city’s planning director, presented the proposed ordinance and said it adds performance standards intended to limit adverse effects if residents keep chickens. Tyler listed requirements in the proposed language including minimum lot size, setbacks for coops and runs, limits on building height, and rules on waste removal and dark‑sky compliant lighting. Tyler said the ordinance expressly prohibits slaughtering chickens on residential property and that the zoning provisions would allow enforcement action by the city when criteria are not met.

On legal and enforcement issues, planning staff said state law limits the city’s ability to impose a licensing regime for individual chicken keepers; however, the city’s recourse under state law and local code includes seeking injunctive relief and fines. As planning staff described enforcement options, a staff member summarized civil penalties available under state law: injunctive relief, fines up to $275 per day, and recovery of attorney’s fees in court actions.

Supporters on the council said the ordinance provides clear standards where none currently exist; opponents emphasized enforcement practicality and the likelihood that staff would only be able to act after neighbor complaints. Councilors debated how variances might be used if a property cannot meet the ordinance’s setback or lot‑size criteria; planning staff said such deviations would require action by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which historically had denied similar variances in some cases.

The ordinance amends portions of chapter 235 (zoning) — specifically sections 235‑12, 235‑13 and 235‑41 — and updates the table of permitted uses. The council waived a full reading, conducted the second reading and adopted the ordinance in a 3‑2 vote. The motion to adopt was made by Councilor Hoffman and seconded by Councilor Cheney; the council recorded three in favor and two opposed. The text of the ordinance establishes the performance standards and leaves enforcement to existing remedies and the zoning process.

The city planning department and legal counsel said they will provide guidance to applicants and neighbors about how the ordinance will be administered; details on implementation timing were not specified during the meeting.