Clinton council approves new residential chicken rules: covered runs, 5-foot property-line setbacks, $40 permit

The Clinton City Council on June 24 reviewed and approved changes to the city—s zoning ordinance that define how residents may keep chickens in residential areas, including a new requirement that outdoor runs be covered and a onetime permit fee.

Council members and staff described the changes as a compromise between residents who asked for fewer restrictions and public-health and nuisance concerns raised during the process. Council member Marie Doherty, who led much of the conversation, said she collected resident feedback and consulted a poultry expert at the Utah State University Extension: "I actually just first of all, I got a — we got a ton of feedback from residents ... a majority of the residents are interested in having some of these restrictions relaxed," Doherty said, later relaying the USU expert—s advice that runs be covered to reduce disease transmission from migratory birds.

The council adopted a package of edits that, as described at the meeting, include: a requirement that chicken runs (the outdoor area where birds roam) be covered with mesh or screening; a 5-foot setback from property lines for coops and runs; a 25-foot distance from coops/runs to any dwelling on an adjacent lot (measured to the adjacent dwelling unit); a onetime permit fee of $40; a prohibition on roosters in residential zones; and a restriction that quail may be allowed but quail and chickens may not be kept on the same residential property. The council left the minimum coop/run space at the city—s existing metric—2 square feet of coop space and 8 square feet of run per bird—rather than adopting the larger standards recommended by the planning commission.

Council discussion emphasized grandfathering for residents who already hold a valid city permit: "If they are currently in compliance with the code and we have ... given them that approval and that licensure, that—s a property right that we—ve granted them," a staff member said during the meeting, explaining that existing permitted coops would normally remain acceptable unless changed.

City staff and several council members said enforcement of the new rules will be handled through the city—s administrative code enforcement process. The ordinance language adopted at the meeting references the city—s administrative enforcement provisions; the council also discussed and gave direction that administrative citations should be available for clear, on‑the‑spot violations (for example, coops built immediately on a property line without a permit) while lesser infractions could be addressed through notices of violation with a two‑week correction window.

At the council—s request, staff will include educational materials in the permitting packet, linking to the Utah State University Extension guidance (the extension indicated it can provide online materials and outreach to residents). The ordinance changes as approved to apply setbacks to both the coop and its run and require covered runs to reduce disease risk, while explicitly excluding ducks and turkeys from the residential rules (those species would need separate, agricultural‑scale regulation).

The council also set a special allowance for larger lots: the code amendment allows additional birds on proportionally larger lots, capped in the ordinance text at 12 birds for a 12,000-square-foot lot (the amendment links larger allotments to additional lot area). The planning commission—s earlier recommendations—such as bumping the per‑bird square‑foot minimums—were discussed, but the council chose the more permissive spacing (retain 2/8) to expand opportunities for residents on smaller lots.

Public comments at the hearing included support for greater resident choice and several requests for clear, plain‑language permit checklists; resident Rex Griffin thanked the council for completing the update and asked for clarity on the 25-foot measurement to adjacent dwellings.

Staff will return clean ordinance language to the council reflecting the changes the council directed: covered runs; 5-foot setbacks from property lines for coops/runs; the 25-foot dwelling separation; the onetime $40 permit; explicit administrative‑enforcement language referencing the city—s code enforcement policy (including the possibility of citations and penalties); and the prohibition of ducks and turkeys in residential zones. The council asked staff to publish a short permitting checklist and a fact sheet explaining the disease‑prevention rationale behind the covered‑run requirement.

The new rules were advanced as part of ordinance number 25-05-Z (zoning text amendment). The ordinance text and the revised permit materials will be posted to the city website once staff combines the council—s edits and the city attorney reviews the final draft. The council indicated staff may bring back a brief, single‑item meeting to finalize the ordinance language if needed.