Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Backyard Chickens Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council hears public input on backyard-chicken rules; sale of eggs and on-site slaughtering remain contested
Summary
Councilors opened a public hearing on proposed zoning-code amendments to allow backyard chickens with limits, debated whether selling eggs should be prohibited and whether language should bar on‑premises slaughter; administration said enforcing public displays, not private care, is the enforcement focus.
A public hearing before the Village of Glendale council on Aug. 4 examined proposed amendments to the village zoning code (chapter 154) that would permit residents to keep backyard chickens with restrictions and clarify limits on commercial activity.
The council and Village Administrator David Lumsden said the planning and laws committees had circulated draft language and that, if council agrees, formal legislation will be introduced in September with another public-comment opportunity. Lumsden said many municipalities explicitly bar egg sales to prevent backyard keeping from becoming a commercial operation: “The intent is to prohibit the operation of commercial facilities for chicken keeping,” he said.
Several council members and residents urged caution. One council member noted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies eggs as a higher‑risk food because of salmonella concerns and said the village should avoid permitting sales that could expose neighbors to greater risk. Residents and councilors also discussed practical enforcement: private donations or barters among neighbors would not be the target, but a visible “eggs for sale” sign could be difficult to regulate.
Councilors also debated whether the ordinance should prohibit on‑site slaughtering. One council member argued the ban should remain to prevent public, gruesome displays visible to neighbors; Lumsden said the enforcement objective is to prohibit public displays—such as birds hung in view—that would reasonably draw complaints, while allowing discreet animal‑care actions for sick birds when done with discretion.
The council did not adopt final text at the meeting but indicated support to move the amendments forward for formal legislation in September. The code enforcement responsibility for this chapter was identified as the village administration and NIM code enforcement (David Lumsden).
