Residents urge restoration of broader backyard-chicken allowances; city attorney says wording only clarified

A series of residents urged the Dardenne Prairie Board of Aldermen to restore earlier city language allowing backyard chickens on residential lots of 10,000 square feet or larger, arguing a May 21 clarification effectively narrowed those rights.

At the public-comment portion of Monday’s meeting, Mike Caslow said he and hundreds of neighbors have kept chickens for years and that a May 21 ordinance action “consolidated down to R1A, effectively removing the rights of the vast majority of Darden Prairie residents to keep chickens.” He urged the board to reconsider that action and to permit reconsideration under the rules of order.

JC Caslow, who identified himself in the meeting materials as a state representative and described his family’s homeschooling and 4-H involvement, told the board the prior Dardenne Prairie code “articulated reasonable setbacks, healthy size minimums and maximums for the enclosure,” and said the recent modifications were “cruel” to families and risked criminalizing law-abiding residents. “This is unfair and unjust,” he said.

Other speakers echoed those concerns. Bruce Summers, a recent resident with about an acre, said backyard poultry contributes to family food security and education. Cheryl Bratton cited a University of Missouri Extension packet that recommends acreage for small flocks and noted the Extension’s warnings about odor, pests and disease transmission. Carol Keane urged keeping a one-acre minimum on the grounds of neighborhood character and property values.

City staff and the city attorney responded during officer communications. The city attorney said the May 21 change was intended to clarify ordinance language and align the city’s code with animal-control guidance, not to change policy or criminalize residents. The attorney stated there was no intent to criminalize anyone and that the ordinance remains “a land use regulation.” Mayor Witteven said the R1A standard remained and that the city’s intention was to provide clearer language to HOAs and residents, not to remove prior allowances.

The board did not take a formal vote to alter the ordinance at the meeting. Staff indicated they would continue to engage residents and that clarifications and follow-ups would be provided to the public; no formal rollback or new ordinance was adopted that night.

What’s next: Residents pressing for change may request the board reopen or reconsider the May 21 action; the city indicated staff and the attorney will continue outreach and clarify the code language to residents and HOAs.