Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petoskey council narrowly directs city attorney to draft backyard‑poultry ordinance after public debate
Summary
After public comments for and against, the council voted 3‑2 to direct the city manager to have legal counsel draft an ordinance allowing backyard hens and ducks using Northern Michigan examples and MSU Extension guidance; key issues raised included inspections, noise, odor and whether the matter should go to voters.
Petoskey City Council voted 3‑2 on Nov. 17 to ask the city manager to request the city attorney draft an ordinance permitting backyard hens and ducks with best‑practice safeguards drawn from Northern Michigan communities and Michigan State University Extension guidance.
Councilmember Shields introduced the proposal after receiving resident inquiries and described the draft as a measured change that would allow limited backyard poultry with restrictions such as limits on numbers and prohibiting roosters. Supporters in the audience and in council said modest limits would advance sustainability and homesteading goals; Larry Dyer, a Petoskey resident, urged the council to use the MSU Extension two‑page bulletin and suggested limits of 4–6 hens and a setback of about 20 feet.
Opponents raised enforcement and operational concerns. Public commenter Charlie Wilmot said allowing backyard poultry could impose an inspection and enforcement burden on public safety and code staff. Councilmembers DeMoor and Murphy said they had not seen a community groundswell for the change and preferred either citizen petition or a ballot question; DeMoor and Murphy voted against asking staff to draft the ordinance.
Council members debated specific regulatory details — setbacks ranging from 20 to 50 feet were discussed in testimony and council remarks — and whether registration, annual inspections or permit fees should be required. Several council members suggested staff should return a fully‑crafted draft ordinance so council could consider concrete setbacks, coop standards, noise and nuisance definitions and enforcement mechanisms before any final vote or referral to voters.
The motion passed on a 3‑2 roll call (Shields, Walker and Nachtraub voting aye; DeMoor and Murphy voting no). Staff said the draft ordinance will be prepared for a future meeting and that council can then decide whether to adopt the ordinance or refer it to a ballot measure.
