Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Agriculture Backyard Poultry topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews draft backyard chicken rules for county residential zoning; staff to refine ordinance language

5530968 · August 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Natural Resources Committee reviewed draft ordinance language to allow backyard chickens in county residential zones, discussed limits per acre and setbacks, and asked staff to refine maximums and minimum-lot-size language before ordinance drafting and attorney review.

The Richland County Natural Resources Committee reviewed a draft addition to the county zoning ordinance that would permit backyard chickens in residential zoning and establish coop standards, setbacks and limits on flock size.

Staff said the draft drew on other counties’ ordinances and proposed requirements including a fully enclosed coop, a connected outdoor run, minimum space per bird, no roosters, and setback standards tied to property lines and road centerlines. The draft included a suggested maximum of eight birds per parcel, which drew discussion from members about whether limits should be per parcel, per acre, or tied to minimum lot sizes in different parts of the county.

Committee members suggested alternatives such as chickens-per-acre or an acreage-based cap with a maximum cap (for example, a per-acre rate with an upper limit). Members also raised the practical challenge of applying minimum-lot-size rules in areas with many parcels smaller than an acre and said the ordinance should avoid unintended consequences for small-lot properties. Staff said they would refine the draft — including options for 4 birds per half-acre or 8 birds per acre with an upper cap — and return with revised language.

No formal ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff indicated the revised draft would be circulated internally and then submitted to the county attorney for legal review before bringing a final draft to the committee and then to the county board for adoption as part of the zoning ordinance update.

Speakers referenced by name during the discussion included Noel (staff who prepared the draft) and committee members offering policy preferences; the transcript did not record a vote on a final numeric limit.