Council debates rewritten animal code; members seek advisory vote on backyard poultry

Council members continued a months‑long review Monday of a revised Chapter 6.18 of the Bellbrook Municipal Code, a rewrite staff said is intended to clarify animal definitions, address nuisance standards and set limits on livestock and poultry in residential areas.

Staff described the draft as a working document that relies on definitions from state law and other official sources. “Everything that you see in red is new,” a staff member said, adding the draft draws definitions from the Ohio Revised Code and state agencies to avoid reinventing technical definitions. The draft narrows allowable animals in residential parcels and links some allowances to zoning rules and parcel size.

A central point of debate was the definition of “small livestock,” which the draft had defined to include rabbits and “poultry species” but to exclude roosters, geese, peafowl, turkeys, ostriches and emus. Council members questioned whether the city should include game birds, swans or geese in the poultry definition. One council member recommended striking “game birds” from the poultry definition and explicitly excluding swans; council discussion agreed to remove game birds and add swans to the exclusion list for residential small‑livestock allowances.

Staff noted beekeeping comprises much of the balance of the draft and that the revision aims to give staff clearer enforcement tools for nuisance behavior (for example, replacing references to barking dogs with broader wording for “unreasonable loud and disturbing noises by any animal”). The draft also revises impoundment language; staff said the county dog pound will not accept animals other than dogs and that the city currently lacks kennel/impound facilities for non‑canine animals.

Several council members said they were not ready to approve a broad allowance for backyard poultry and urged a community poll. Councilman Cyphers (speaking from his experience collecting signatures) and others favored an advisory ballot rather than letting council alone decide whether to expand small‑livestock allowances beyond rabbits. “I would propose to leave it at rabbits right now and to do an advisory vote,” Cyphers said.

Staff said the standard process for a local advisory question would be to pass a resolution and ordinance directing the county board of elections to place the advisory question on a future ballot; board of elections staff must confirm whether and when they would accept such a question and provide cost estimates. Council asked staff to contact the board of elections (staff referenced a contact named Tracy) and report back at the next meeting on feasibility and likely costs. Staff also said it would prepare a draft ordinance ready for introduction at the next meeting, with potential amendments to reflect any council decisions on exclusions or advisory routing.

Council members emphasized they want broader resident input before changing what some described as longstanding neighborhood norms. No formal ordinance introduction or adoption occurred Monday; the discussion produced a staff direction to seek board of elections guidance and return with a proposed introduced ordinance and options for an advisory poll.