Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coppell council declines to ask staff to draft ordinance to allow chickens, citing state preemption risks
Summary
Council debated whether to remove poultry from the list of prohibited animals but members and legal staff warned a 2023 state agriculture preemption could limit local regulation after one year; the council indicated a majority did not want staff to draft an ordinance.
City staff and legal advisers briefed Coppell City Council on Jan. 13 about a change in state law that defines some small-scale backyard poultry as an "agricultural operation" and can limit a city’s ability to regulate such operations after they have been in place for one year. A presenter summarized the state language and the potential for preemption.
The presenter explained that the state statute describes agricultural operations as raising or keeping livestock or poultry and includes language saying a city may not impose requirements on agricultural operations located inside city limits; the effect can be that, once an operation exists for 12 months, some local nuisance or permitting controls are restricted. The presenter said: "After 1 year. Correct." (presentation and legal interpretation provided in the meeting.)
Council members asked whether existing chickens in town would be grandfathered; staff said the city currently has an ordinance prohibiting livestock operations and that existing chickens would not be automatically grandfathered. Council members pressed on whether adopting an ordinance to allow poultry would immediately permit roosters and whether setback or coop regulations would be preempted. A legal adviser referenced an attorney general opinion and September 2023 preemption language affecting other cities and said many older ordinances were grandfathered but new allowances could be preempted.
When the mayor asked whether anyone wished to have staff draft an ordinance to allow and regulate poultry, council members indicated their preferences by speaking: the mayor reported, "we've got a majority of no," and the council did not direct staff to prepare a drafting of an ordinance. No formal ordinance was introduced or voted on at the meeting.
Ending: Council chose not to move forward with drafting an ordinance to permit poultry at this time; staff will continue to monitor state developments and advise the council if circumstances change.
