Manassas council debates whether to allow backyard chickens; staff recommends animal-control permit approach and larger lot minimum

City staff presented options for allowing domestic backyard chickens in Manassas and recommended regulatory language and administrative processes if council wants to proceed. Council discussion produced mixed views, and several members indicated they did not want staff to advance the matter further at this time.

Staff explained chickens are currently permitted under the animal-control ordinance only if coops are at least 250 feet from any occupied residence — a rule that effectively bans chickens in the city. Staff outlined three paths: (A) resurrect a zoning-text amendment (minimum-lot size options were 10,000 or 20,000 square feet or an acre), (B) adopt a Chapter 18 animal-control permit and administrative regulations with zoning sign-off for setbacks, or (C) do nothing.

Staff said the draft regulations used by other localities typically allow four hens, ban roosters, prohibit slaughter and sales of chicken meat, require coop setbacks and welfare standards, and create an inspection and permit regime. Staff explained that a Chapter 18 (animal-control) approach can be administered with an annual permit and easier renewal/inspection mechanics than a zoning-based permit and proposed that zoning staff could first confirm setbacks and then animal-control would issue permits.

Council members pressed staff on likely permit fees, enforcement implications and HOA restrictions (staff noted private covenants would supersede a city ordinance). Chief Keane (police/animal-control) and staff said animal-control currently has three sworn animal-control officers and that annual inspections and enforcement capacity would need to be considered. Staff recommended a higher lot-size threshold (they said they were leaning toward 20,000 square feet rather than 10,000) to limit the number of eligible parcels; councilors asked for a map overlay showing lots subject to HOA covenants.

During the discussion a number of council members voiced opposition. Multiple council members said they remained unconvinced by the public-health, disease‑spread and enforcement tradeoffs and did not want staff to expend additional work drafting a final ordinance. At least four council members indicated they were not in favor of moving forward at this time; other members said they were open to proceeding with a tightly constrained, animal-control‑based permit if council directed staff to do so. Staff asked for council guidance and said they would not invest further drafting effort unless council endorsed a direction.

No formal vote was recorded; staff left the session with direction that the council majority did not want staff to move ahead on drafting a final ordinance at this time.