Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Backyard Chickens topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press Harrisburg to ease UDO rules after pet chickens removed

Town of Harrisburg Town Council · July 8, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Several Harrisburg residents asked the council to update the Unified Development Ordinance to allow backyard chickens on smaller lots, arguing permits are unnecessary and pointing to nearby towns with more permissive rules; family members requested a council vote to direct staff to draft a change as early as August.

Multiple residents urged the Town of Harrisburg council on July 16 to consider an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that would allow residents on smaller lots to keep backyard chickens.

Kaylin (Caitlin) Hodges described the recent removal of four family pet chickens and urged a UDO change so small‑lot residents could keep hens. Family members — Derek Hodges, Tina Hodges and others — asked the council to vote to direct staff to draft a simple, permit‑light ordinance modeled on neighboring towns such as Kannapolis or Belmont. Derek Hodges suggested a pilot approach with a small number of households to gather operational data before creating permit requirements, while Tina Hodges argued that a permit-driven approach would place an enforcement burden on the town’s single code enforcement officer and be disproportionate compared with regulated but unpermitted pets such as dogs.

Supporters emphasized limited nuisance experience — the Hodges family reported more than a year with backyard hens and no nuisance complaints — and suggested setbacks and confinement to backyards as safeguards. Councilmembers said they had received materials from town staff and from residents and indicated the issue would be reviewed; one councilmember noted staff had begun comparing neighboring-town ordinances and suggested the council could consider a recorded vote or take up an initial direction at the August meeting.

No formal change to the UDO was adopted on July 16; residents requested a recorded vote on whether to proceed with drafting a UDO amendment at the August meeting, and several councilmembers signaled openness to discuss half‑acre/4-chicken models and permit alternatives.