Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bismarck commission declines proposed citywide backyard‑chicken ordinance
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission debated a stakeholder‑draft ordinance to permit a limited number of hens in residential zones but voted down the proposal after concerns about disease, predators, waste management and enforcement were raised.
Get email alerts on the Urban Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered a proposed text amendment to allow residents within Bismarck city limits to keep chickens under a new permitting framework but the motion to approve the ordinance failed.
City staff said a multi‑stakeholder group — including representation from the city, police, public health, NDSU Burleigh County Extension and the Dakota Zoo — drafted a proposal that would allow up to six hens per household, require a one‑time permit, restrict commercial production and require screening (a six‑foot privacy fence) and confinement in a coop and run. Staff also noted a history: similar language was considered in 2021 but did not move forward at the city commission level.
Public testimony split. Supporters emphasized 4‑H education and local food resilience. Marvin Lehi, a long‑time advocate, described the up‑front costs of coops and argued permit outreach (signage, retail notification) would be needed to reach potential keepers. Opponents and several commissioners raised concerns about animal health (avian influenza and disease transmission), predation, coop heating and fire risk (heat lamps in straw bedding), compost/waste management and how animal control would or would not handle birds at large. Some commissioners said they were sympathetic to backyard agriculture but worried the draft was too loose and lacked technical minimums for animal welfare and public health.
A motion to approve the zoning ordinance text amendment (moved by Commissioner Field and seconded by Commissioner Zent) failed on roll call: four commissioners voted yes and seven voted no. The item did not pass the Planning and Zoning Commission and may be further considered by the City Commission if reintroduced.
