Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears resident’s enforcement dispute and staff recommends simplifying chicken rules
Summary
After a resident described a year-long enforcement dispute over hundreds of chickens and a pending court interpretation, staff recommended standardizing residential chicken limits to six birds and removing a cross-reference that creates confusion for lots larger than 20,000 sq ft.
Police and planning staff urged the Springville City Council on Tuesday to fix confusing language in the city’s chicken ordinance after a judge’s strict reading of the code has produced contradictory interpretations.
“The recommendation from community development would be just to strike … and just leave it at for all residential zones regardless of lot size, to make it more clear, just limit to 6 chickens only,” a staff speaker said, proposing a single residential limit and removal of the cross-reference to Title 11 that currently ties limits to agricultural rules.
The problem stems from an apparent conflict between two parts of the code: one section limits chickens in residential zones to six, but another cross-reference to Title 11 (agricultural provisions and animal-unit calculations) can be read to allow many more birds on larger parcels. Staff said a judge in a recent case offered a strict reading that could be interpreted either as allowing no chickens or as removing a numerical limit entirely for lots above 20,000 square feet, producing significant enforcement uncertainty.
A resident who identified herself earlier and her husband, Michael, described a prolonged dispute with the city’s prosecutor and code enforcement that began in October. Michael said the household believes the code allows roughly 36 birds on their 32,000-square-foot parcel and that younger birds under six months do not count toward the animal-unit math. “That’s 36 birds is what we believe we’re allowed to have based on the law,” he said, and added that the family has received conflicting guidance from city staff and prosecutors during the case.
Council members pressed staff on how the various zoning categories (for example, R‑115 and agricultural zones) and parcel-size calculations interact with animal‑unit rules and whether a scaled approach—like Provo’s chronic‑nuisance or lot‑size dependent schemes—would be better than a simple cap. Staff described enforcement practice (inspectors using parcel maps and zoning records) and said the city plans to bring draft ordinance language back in a January work session so property owners and council can review concrete wording.
Council members and staff also discussed practical enforcement issues—how to handle townhomes and small lots, the distinction between lot and parcel in the code language, and whether roosters should remain explicitly prohibited. Staff reaffirmed the city’s intent to notify affected property owners before the next discussion and to present specific, draft code language in the work session.
The council took no final ordinance action at the meeting; staff committed to return with draft language and additional analysis in January.
