Connellsville residents press council to allow backyard chickens; officials say zoning changes required

Nina Pleva, a Connellsville resident, urged the City Council on March 18 to permit backyard chickens and said the practice could help residents access fresher eggs and reduce food waste.

Pleva told the council, “My name is Nina. I live in the city of Connellsville, and I am proposing urban homesteading in Connellsville with backyard chickens.” She said properly kept hens reduce pests, produce nutrient-dense eggs and can be managed with coops and covered runs.

The comment period drew multiple residents who supported allowing a small number of hens and presented a petition; speakers said they had gathered about 115 signatures in under 24 hours supporting permission for backyard birds. Supporters suggested limits such as no roosters, a cap of about five hens per yard, enclosed coops and prohibitions on selling eggs from residential lots.

Council members and the city solicitor responded with legal and implementation concerns. The city solicitor explained that under the city’s zoning ordinance uses not specifically listed are treated as “use by special exception” and currently are permitted only in the C-2 (highway) and industrial districts. The solicitor said county zoning continues to apply within borough limits and could bar chickens in particular parcels even if the borough adopted an ordinance allowing them.

Council members, the code enforcement official and other speakers raised operational objections: enforcement challenges when animals run loose, complaints already reported in nearby South Connellsville, the risk of attracting pests if coops are not constructed to code, uncertainty about how to handle confiscated birds, and limitations on limiting permits to owner-occupied properties. A city official noted the zoning hearing board can impose conditions through the special-exception process but that a citywide allowance would require amending the zoning ordinance — a months‑long process with public notices and hearings and additional administrative costs (the solicitor cited a current $325 fee for a zoning hearing application as a point of reference).

Speakers referenced nearby municipalities’ approaches: South Connellsville and Pittsburgh were cited as examples with different rules. The record included residents’ assertions that commercial eggs are older and chemically processed, and that properly handled backyard eggs can be safer and more nutritious; the council and staff did not endorse those health claims but noted the city’s health officer had expressed reservations about permitting urban flocks within city limits.

The council did not take action on a new ordinance at the meeting. Mayor Lincoln and other members said staff and the solicitor would research options and that any citywide change would require amendment of the zoning ordinance and additional public hearings. Council members said the process would not be completed immediately and would likely take several months.

The discussion combined public comment (individual residents’ appeals and petitions) with staff and solicitor explanation of legal constraints and enforcement challenges. The council indicated it will study the issue further before placing any ordinance change on a future agenda.