Prince George planning commission backs allowing backyard hens on smaller residential lots

The Prince George County Planning Commission voted on Feb. 27 to adopt a recommendation (referred to in the meeting as “Resolution A”) directing staff to prepare zoning ordinance language that would allow backyard hens on smaller residential lots and address related setbacks and standards.

The recommendation follows nearly a year of discussion and two recent public surveys. Planning staff summarized the background: until 2014 poultry was allowed only in agricultural districts; the 2014 ordinance permitted poultry in residential districts only on lots of two acres or larger. Complaints and sporadic code-enforcement questions in 2020 and again in 2024 prompted the Board of Supervisors to ask the Planning Commission to study whether rules should change.

Staff told commissioners that surveys conducted in 2020 and again in 2024 showed similar levels of public support for allowing chickens on parcels smaller than two acres (roughly 74–75 percent in both surveys). When asked what a reasonable maximum number of birds would be, respondents most commonly supported six birds; the staff reported about 78 percent in 2020 and about 80 percent in 2024 favored that number.

Staff presented two primary options for the commission: (A) authorize allowing backyard hens on smaller, “normal” residential lots (with a maximum of six hens and revised setback rules to replace the current two-acre restriction), or (B) make no change to where chickens are permitted but reorganize and clarify the zoning ordinance so standards are easier to find and consider recommending an update to the county’s animal ordinance to give animal control clearer authority to help enforce zoning-related complaints.

Staff said animal services had recommended changes because the current animal-ordinance language does not give animal-control officers clear jurisdiction to enforce zoning provisions; as a result, officers sometimes arrive on a site and must refer zoning enforcement to another department. Staff recommended that even if the county does not change lot-size rules, the zoning ordinance be reorganized to make standards clearer and that the Board consider amendments to the animal ordinance to allow animal control to assist with enforcement of chicken-related zoning violations.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about sequencing and process. Staff explained that the zoning rules for chickens sit in the county’s zoning ordinance, so any change would require drafting ordinance language, public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and then a Board resolution to initiate the formal zoning-ordinance amendment process. Staff said the Board was tentatively scheduled to consider the issue on April 22, when it could direct staff to prepare ordinance amendments if it chose to proceed.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt the staff’s Resolution A; the motion passed on a roll call with six votes in favor and one opposed (Miss Coneppa voted no, Mr. Bresco was absent). The commission’s vote is advisory; any zoning changes would still require formal ordinance drafting, public hearings and final action by the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioners and staff also discussed the wider comprehensive-plan and zoning-ordinance update that the county has begun. Staff said the comprehensive-plan update may allow the county to refine land-use categories and that a future, coordinated rewrite of the zoning ordinance could incorporate the Planning Commission’s guidance on backyard poultry and other uses.

The motion to adopt Resolution A does not itself change zoning. It directs staff to prepare the draft ordinance language and associated materials the Board would need to consider potential amendments, including revised setbacks and enforcement language for animal control.

Speakers at the discussion included commissioners present at the Feb. 27 meeting and planning staff; no public commenters spoke during this agenda item.